Posted by marykeating on February 27, 2010 under Government contractors, Wage and hour issues | 
Long a punch line, the idea that the government can step in and improve lives has its deep seated detractors. But the Obama administration is discussing using the federal government’s massive economic power to change the way workers are treated. According to a New York Times article, one in four workers is employed by a company with a federal contract.
One in four workers translates into more than a quarter of American families affected, since so many families have two wage-earners. The administration intends to scrutinize the procurement process, and favor companies with good records on labor and the environment, and those with good wage structures. Naturally this potential executive order has drawn fire. Critics contend that the cost of government contracts will increase, that union shops will be favored, and that many companies will drop out of contention. The article points out a Maryland study, however, that shows the opposite. When Maryland required contractors to pay a living wage (higher than minimum wage), more 
contractors placed bids. “Some higher-wage companies said they began seeking government bids because the new policy leveled the playing field.” In addition, the drain on government resources by the working poor would decrease. Moreover, some evidence indicates that the lowest paying contractors do not produce the same quality work as the companies that pay higher wages and provide employee benefits. No executive order has issued yet, and critics questioned whether legislation would be necessary to change the procurement process. The ramifications could be significant, however, in reversing the rising gap between the most and least affluent in this country.
Posted by marykeating on February 26, 2010 under Economic situation |
A new study based on census figures rated American cities with more than 75,000 people for affluence. Three Maryland cities made the population cut. Columbia ranked 24th, Silver Spring came in at 46, and Baltimore trailed behind at 294, with a median household income of only $40,313. Only one large city, San Francisco, cracked the top ten.
But neighbor Washington sits at 35. Its median household income is $57,936, but its home values are much higher. So while District residents are wealthier on paper, we all know how having a high home value is not particularly helpful when the gas bill is due, and even harmful when the mortgage bill is due.
This study, though, was not looking at the risk of foreclosure, or even unemployment rates, but how much wealth a city can boast, in the aggregate. Washington’s higher salaries, and probably more stable federal government jobs, boost its ranking.
Posted by marykeating on February 18, 2010 under Unemployment compensation |
The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show some slight improvement in the rate of unemployment, with women enjoying the biggest job gains. Unemployment among women stands at 7.9%, and men at 10%. Teenage unemployment is higher, but of course teenage employees include those who have not finished high school and have no job experience.
I’m not going to want to look at these figures next month, because who knows how the snow afflicting the Eastern seaboard will mess with the trend. We already know that retail sales were lower (when malls are closed it’s hard to shop), and lots of people worked from home or not at all. But when this glitch is FINALLY over, we can hope that unemployment rates will continue to fall.
Posted by marykeating on February 14, 2010 under Court news, Discrimination in employment |
As Andy Borowitz might write, this just in from “Duh Magazine:” two new studies prove that the race or gender of a judge is strongly correlated with the outcome of cases involving race and gender discrimination.
One study found that in sexual harassment cases, plaintiffs were twice as 
likely to win if the judge was female. The other study focused on judges of different races, and learned that plaintiffs lost just over half the time if the judge was African-American, but lost 81% of their cases heard before a white judge.
The ABA discussed the studies in a program called about “Diversity on the Bench: Is the ‘Wise Latina’ a Myth?” Although Justice Sotomayor took heat for her comment, it rang true for many. These studies concluded that the judges applied the law correctly. The facts, though, are viewed differently depending on whose glasses are used. We have all seen this phenomenon at work; a remark that seems innocuous to one person is perceived as a grievous insult by another. A series of job assignments looks neutral to the white male, while the women easily interpret the pattern of discrimination.
We all bring the experiences of ourselves and our friends to the task of judging what happened in a stranger’s case, and was it motivated by discrimination. Employment discrimination plaintiffs often choose to have juries decide their cases, since the accumulation of experience helps cut through bogus defenses. Also, since many judges have excelled their entire lives, they have never felt held back by discrimination. I believe some have grown to believe that discrimination does not truly exist, unless it is so blatant that there can be no alternative interpretation. (And those cases settle.)
The problem arises with these blinders because federal courts decide so many cases on summary judgment. The judges look at the facts as presented by the lawyers, affidavits, and depositions, and frequently decide that there are not enough facts to warrant a trial. And this is where the accumulation of experience, the perspective of the gatekeeper, does not let in the possibility that subtle actions whisper discrimination.
Posted by marykeating on February 9, 2010 under Employment benefit issues, Uncategorized, disability discrimination |
The Americans with Disabilities Act has faced a formidable battle in achieving its original goals of outlawing discrimination, and improving the employment rates for disabled people. Originally signed into law by the first President Bush, the ADA forbade discrimination against individuals who had a disability, so long as they could perform the essential functions of their job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. One would have predicted that the “reasonable accommodation” language would have led to the most controversy, but in reality, the courts systematically limited the availability of ADA’s protections by narrowing the definition of “disabled,” so few employees qualified.
Congress made some helpful changes last year, specifically legislating around one Supreme Court decision. Yet it remains a difficult law, in part because of the often cited principle that “attendance is an essential function” of nearly every job. So people who are disabled and need a period of recuperation or hospitalization are especially vulnerable when strict attendance policies lead to termination. Often they are told that light duty is not an option (though they report that other people do get light duty), or that they cannot have more leave time.
The EEOC has been pursuing Sears Roebuck for just such a discriminatory policy since 2004. Last week, it reached a large settlement, $6,200,000 with the retailer, which will benefit 235 of its former employees. All 
complained that they were damaged by Sears’ inflexible policy requiring an employee to return to work within one year after an injury, and failed to accommodate their disabilities to enable their return. In addition, Sears is ordered by the Court not to discriminate in the future, must post a notice in its stores for three years explaining the consent decree, and is required to report regularly to the EEOC on the progress of its accommodations of injured employees. The consent decree also alters Sears’ policies of communicating with its disabled employees, and requires a centralized leave management team to oversee the requests for and grants of accommodations.
The success of this litigation may swing the pendulum away from shutting the doors to injured or ill employees. Whether the motivation is fear that the “damaged goods” will never do the job efficiently, that health insurance premiums will rise, or simply to punish the person who has taken “too much” of the sick leave benefits offered, employers will have to watch their policies and practices in light of the Sears decision.
Posted by marykeating on February 7, 2010 under Employment at will, Unemployment compensation |
The plight of unemployed workers is inextricably linked to the high rate of foreclosures. These are not the stories of people who bought a house on credit that they could, under no fantasy, afford. Those are the extremes, and were never destined to work out.
These are the stories of ordinary people squeezed by daily expenses, but making it until they were brought down by a prolonged period of unemployment. They lose their houses, their credit is smashed, and when they finally get a new job, they remain insecure. A recent New York Times article details only three such examples, but they are surely worth pondering as we see whether the American mindset will permanently change. Our grandparents (or parents or great-grandparents) who lived through the Great Depression were more likely to believe in saving to the point of miserliness, buying nothing on credit, and putting by for retirement. Yet, as the thirties turned into the forties and fifties, the post-war economy soared, social security was available, good private pensions abounded, and people took more risks. Easier, perhaps, when a lifetime at one company was commonplace.
Now many well-educated, well-trained, hard-working people have lived the reality of employment at will. They may not be able to afford a house again, or be able to handle the commitment required. They know that loyalty to an employer is a one-way relationship. Will their experiences change our priorities and choices, or will our native optimism prevent us from redefining the American dream?
Posted by marykeating on February 6, 2010 under Pending legislation, Unemployment compensation |
We get occasional glimpses of hope in the economic news, but the unemployment rate remains high. The latest projection I heard projected unemployment remaining above ten percent all year. To deal with the prolonged unemployment of so many workers, the government has extended the maximum weeks of unemployment benefits. It also has increased the unemployment tax payable by employers.
This sets the stage for the classic clash of interests in Annapolis. Some business interests are asking for a reduction of benefits, while others are urging higher weekly benefits and more weeks. An emergency bill is pending this session, and has made it past the first stage. According to the bill, some of the changes to the law are necessary to qualify for the federal stimulus funds.
One of the more employee friendly provisions changes the formula for calculating the weekly unemployment benefit, by looking at the most recent four quarters of pay rates. This provision would help workers who had been earning increased amounts in their fields before becoming unemployed.
In addition, the law provides for extended benefits and training for unemployed workers who have been unemployed for an extended period, and are in a declining occupation, or were laid off in a permanent reduction in force. Employers’s rating experience is not charged for unemployed individuals receiving the additional training benefits.
