San Francisco Votes $15 Minimum Wage; Votes in 4 States Advance Wages

Clare O’Connor Forbes Staff, Forbes Magazine

11/05/2014 @ 8:52AM

Low-wage retail and fast food workers can claim a second victory in a fight for a $15 minimum wage that has resulted in strikes, protests and arrests over the last two years.

On Tuesday, San Francisco voters approved a minimum wage of $15 across the city, joining Seattle, which raised its pay to the same sum in June. As in Seattle, San Francisco workers will see their wage increase incrementally. By next May, it’ll hit $12.25, climbing to $13 in 2016. By 2018, it’ll be $15, meaning a full-time minimum wage worker in the liberal California city can expect to make $31,000 a year.

Minimum wage also got a boost in four traditionally Republican states following Tuesday’s midterm elections, with voters approving ballot measures in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota.

In Alaska, low-wage workers will see their hourly pay boosted to $9.75 by 2016 (the federal minimum remains $7.25). In Arkansas, that number will be $8.50, while Nebraska voters approved a new hourly salary of $9. South Dakota workers will see their wage upped to $8.50 next year.

These red state wage hikes follow a campaign by President Obama to see the federal minimum raised to $10.10 per hour. The bill died on the Senate floor in April. Continue reading

4 States Voting on Minimum Wage Hikes

Huffington Post 10/31/2014

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress may be in no mood to hike the minimum wage, but four conservative-leaning states are poised to do it on their own next week.

Initiatives to raise the minimum wage appear on the ballot in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota on Tuesday. Alaska, Arkansas and South Dakota all have Republican-controlled legislatures, and Nebraska is solidly red despite the official lack of party affiliation in its statehouse.

Recent polls have shown strong support for each of these ballot initiatives. That should come as no surprise. The idea of hiking the wage floor tends to receive bipartisan backing among Americans, with around two-thirds of voters saying they favor such proposals in most surveys.

“We’re expecting them all to go through,” said Tsedeye Gebreselassie, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, which advocates for a higher minimum wage. “I would be shocked if it didn’t go through in any of the states.”

If the ballot measures pass, they will mark a milestone of sorts for the minimum wage.

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia currently have their own minimum wage set higher than the federal level of $7.25 per hour, and Maryland and Hawaii will soon join them thanks to laws passed earlier this year. Of the four states weighing proposals next week, three of them — Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota — have their wage floors set at just $7.25.

If all four ballot measures make it through, a majority of states will have effectively determined that the federal minimum wage set by Congress is too low. They would include large swaths of the U.S. where the cost of living is generally lower than average — a common argument among conservatives against raising the federal wage floor.

Alaska’s measure would hike the state’s minimum wage from $7.75 to $9.75 by 2016. Arkansas’ minimum wage would go to $8.50 by 2017, Nebraska’s to $9 by 2016, and South Dakota’s to $8.50 by next year. The measures in Alaska and South Dakota would also tie the minimum wage to an inflation index, so that the wage floor would rise with the cost of living. Ten states have already indexed their minimum wages.

Illinois also has a minimum wage measure on the ballot Tuesday, though it’s nonbinding and merely allows voters to send a message to state lawmakers.

The last time the country saw so many minimum-wage ballot initiatives in a midterm election was 2006, when there were six — in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio. The fate of those measures bodes well for the backers of this year’s initiatives: Every one of them passed.

Democrats in Congress have proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 and tying it to inflation, a measure backed by President Barack Obama. House Republicans have so far refused to give the bill a vote, however, and Senate Democrats haven’t managed to round up enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. If Republicans win control of the Senate next week, the prospects of a federal minimum wage hike anytime soon will become even dimmer.

Given the gridlock in Washington, the president has urged cities and states to bypass Congress and raise their own minimum wages.

“To every mayor, governor and state legislator in America, I say, ‘You don’t have to wait for Congress to act,'” Obama said in his State of the Union speech in January. “Americans will support you if you take this on.”

Continue reading

Doctor Says No Overtime; Pregnant Woman’s Boss Says No Job

The New York Times OCT. 19, 2014

Angelica Valencia put the doctor’s note in her pocketbook and stepped out of her apartment in the early morning darkness. Then she started praying.

She prayed on the crowded buses and on the subway train that carried her from Queens into the Bronx to the potato-packing plant where she worked. “Please let me keep my job,” she repeated during her two-hour commute. “Please let everything work out.”

She punched in at 7:30 a.m. and handed her manager the note. Then Ms. Valencia, who was 39 and three months pregnant, went straight to work. Last year, she had a miscarriage. This time, her doctor said, she was once again high risk. No overtime, he ordered, just eight hours a day.

But it was the busy season at the Fierman Produce Exchange, and her bosses had already told her she had to work overtime. So as Ms. Valencia sorted potatoes on that Aug. 8 morning, she worried: How would her supervisors respond to the doctor’s note? At the end of her shift, would she still have a job?

This month is the first anniversary of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which was signed into law by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Oct. 2, 2013. The law, which went into effect in January, represents a big step forward for working women. Continue reading

Mapping Out the Jimmy John’s Noncompete Requirement for Minimum-Wage Workers

Posted: 10/17/2014 5:55 pm EDT Updated: 10/17/2014 5:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON — As Huffington Post reported on Monday, many workers at Jimmy John’s sandwich shops have been asked to sign the sort of strict noncompete agreement usually reserved for high-level executives. According to the clause, the worker agrees not to take a job at a competing sandwich shop for a period of two years following employment at Jimmy John’s.

The company’s definition of “competitor” is rather broad: any business that derives 10 percent or more of its revenue from the sale of sandwiches, and that resides within 3 miles of a Jimmy John’s location.

After HuffPost posted a copy of the agreement, many readers wondered just how badly such a contract could restrict workers’ job options in the unlikely situation it were actually enforced. Thanks to Sean Maday, founder of the news mapping site SigActs, we now have an answer to what he calls “an interesting geospatial question.”

Using the addresses of Jimmy John’s roughly 2,000 locations, Maday created a map that reveals the effective blackout areas under the restaurant chain’s noncompete clause. The red circles indicate zones in which a worker who signed the agreement would technically be forbidden to pursue sandwich-related work:

As the map shows, if a franchisee were to enforce the clause — and if a judge were to uphold it in the case of a challenge — a former Jimmy John’s employee could effectively be run out of Chicago, Minneapolis and Denver for the purposes of deli employment. Large swaths of other major metropolitan areas would also be off-limits, and former Jimmy John’s workers would have to head to the fringes of the nation’s college towns if they still wanted to make hoagies.

According to one franchisee, the clause is included in the standard-issue hiring packet distributed by Jimmy John’s corporate offices, although individual store owners decide who must sign it. The franchisee said many owners have jettisoned the language from the hiring packet since it came under scrutiny.

HuffPost still knows of no cases in which a franchisee tried to enforce the clause, which many judges would likely find unreasonable anyway. Several low-level employees, however, did confirm that they were required to sign the noncompete as a condition of employment. Use of the clause has apparently varied from store to store; in some, only management-level employees have been asked to sign.

Continue reading

Walmart Plans to Abandon Minimum Wage


The latest sign that the tide is turning in favor of better pay for low-wage workers: Walmart’s CEO on Wednesday announced the company’s intention eventually to abandon the minimum wage.

Walmart chief executive Douglas McMillon told reporters after an investor conference that the company plans to pay all of its workers at a rate higher than the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. He did not say how much more.

“It is our intention over time that we will be in a situation where we don’t pay minimum wage at all,” McMillon said, according to multiple sources. The move to pay all Walmart employees more than the minimum wage would be largely symbolic: McMillon said less than 1 percent of Walmart’s U.S. employees currently make the minimum wage.

Walmart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan on Thursday confirmed McMillon’s statement to HuffPost, and said that only 6,000 of the company’s 1.3 million U.S. employees currently make the minimum wage. Buchanan said she couldn’t offer a timeline for when the company would make the change.

When asked what motivated the decision, she said, “We’re looking at how we can take care of our associates and engage them, not only to transform our workforce here at Walmart, but also to transform the workforce here in the U.S.”

McMillon is the latest executive whose comments reflect an apparent trend in corporate America to shift slowly away from the current federal minimum wage. The CEOs of Subway, Dairy Queen and McDonald’s have recently spoken out in favor of a higher federal minimum wage. Ikea increased its lowest pay tier for U.S. workers, bringing a raise to more than 13,000 employees. Overall, surveys have found that a majority of employers think the minimum wage should be higher than it is.

Such an intention is particularly notable coming from the CEO of Walmart, which is the country’s largest private employer, and one that is often accused of paying its workers low wages.

Walmart has disputed such claims, saying its average hourly pay is $12.92, which is significantly higher than the federal minimum. That calculation, however, does not include the wages of its part-time workers.

The announcement came as hundreds of Walmart workers and other low-wage retail and fast-food employees protested on Wednesday and Thursday in four cities, demanding full-time jobs and a minimum wage of $15 an hour.

In New York, protesters picketed the Park Avenue apartment of Walmart heiress Alice Walton, where protesters said they would deliver a petition asking for livable wages.

The battle for a higher guaranteed wage has been fought not just on the street but also in Congress. President Barack Obama has called for raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, but his efforts have met staunch resistance from Republicans.

The minimum wage hasn’t been raised since July 2009, and its purchasing power has fallen dramatically since it peaked in 1968. According to the National Employment Law Project, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, today it would be $10.90 an hour.


Continue reading

Delay in Wage Hike for Home Health Workers

 WASHINGTON — The Labor Department announced Tuesday that it plans to delay its enforcement of new minimum wage and overtime protections for the country’s home care workers, though the protections will go into effect as planned.

Workers who tend to the elderly and people with disabilities in their homes had been carved out of the labor protections that cover other hourly workers in the U.S. After a years-long campaign by worker advocates, the White House announced last year that it would extend those rights to roughly 2 million home care workers as part of the president’s economic agenda for low- and middle-income earners.

But pushback against the new rules came from home care companies as well as several state Medicaid programs, which pay the salaries of many home care workers. The National Association of Medicaid Directors recently asked the White House to wait an extra year and a half before rolling out the rule, which was slated to go into effect Jan. 1, 2015, saying its members weren’t yet ready to comply with the new rules.

In a filing with the Federal Register on Tuesday, the Labor Department wrote that the new rules would still go into effect on Jan. 1 as scheduled, but that the agency would not enforce them for the first six months. For the six months following that, the agency would enforce the rules at its discretion.

The decision appears to be a compromise. By delaying enforcement, the Labor Department gives states and companies more time to adjust to the new rules, while also placating groups that were concerned the rules themselves might be in jeopardy.

Labor Department officials explained the decision in a blog post on the agency’s website Tuesday:

We have consistently emphasized the importance of implementing the rule in a manner that both protects consumers and expands wage protections for direct care workers. We believe this non-enforcement policy will help achieve both of those goals.

PHI, an advocacy group for home care workers, said in a statement that the decision means workers “will have to wait as long as another 12 months to receive even the most basic labor protections, guarantees that most other American workers take for granted.”

The Service Employees International Union, which represents an increasing number of home care workers around the country, said that despite the enforcement delay, it was pleased the rules were moving forward. Mary Kay Henry, the union’s president, said SEIU plans to work with state leaders on implementing the rules during the months the Labor Department declines to enforce them.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), said in a statement that he “applaud[ed] the Department of Labor’s efforts to move forward with this critical rule. Both caregivers and the consumers they care for will benefit” from the policy.

The reforms will bring home care workers under the umbrella of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Depression-era law that created a minimum wage and time-and-a-half pay for overtime. Home care workers, who generally earn low wages, have been excluded from those regulations under the so-called “companionship exemption” created by Congress in the 1970’s. Advocates argue that the original exemption was meant to cover casual babysitters but not health care workers.

Some disability rights groups have raised concerns that the reforms raise the cost of home care without increasing funding for it. The advocacy group Adapt criticized the delay in enforcement on Tuesday as insufficient.

“The basic problem with the [overtime] changes is that without funding in place to pay for them, states and provider agencies will simply cap the hours attendants can work to avoid any overtime costs and liability,” the group said in a statement. “This will undercut the ability of people with disabilities and seniors to live in the community.”

Continue reading

NY AG Schneiderman Ad on Car Wash Worker

This message is being distributed on behalf of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman featuring Patricio, a car wash worker, who benefited from legal help to regain more than $18 million in wage theft cases.

As a car wash worker, I work hard to support my three children. But when my employer wouldn’t pay me my full wages and tips, it became nearly impossible to make ends meet. See: