After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

On December 1, the new federal regulations on overtime pay will go into effect. It’s unclear how many American workers will be affected by the changes, but it’s estimated to be over four million. The Fair Labor Standards Act and will make time-and-a-half overtime pay mandatory for any workers making less than $47,476 a year.

Under the current regulations, employers don’t have to pay overtime wages, even if they work over 40 hours, to their employees who make as little as $23,660 if they designate them as “exempt.” Under the new regulations, that will no longer fly, and someone would have to make over the $47,476 threshold to become exempt. The salary threshold for who can be designated as exempt will also rise over time, to keep with inflation and rising costs of living. In 2020, it’s scheduled to be raised to $51,000.

This could mean a few different things for employers come early December–some companies may raise some employees’ wages over $47,476 to avoid paying overtime, others may stop approving overtime wages altogether, and some may hire more part time workers. And it could require new ways of monitoring time, keeping records, and training, for companies and employees alike. But it’s important to note that for some employees, who work well over 40 hours a week but don’t get compensated for that time, this could be a huge improvement to their standards of living.

Some states are rebelling against the new regulations. Over 20 states have joined together in filing a complaint in federal court. Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma stated:

Working families across the state could face increased hardships resulting from this new rule, such as hours being reduced, salaries being slashed, and overtime hours going unrecognized. This is yet another example of the Administration’s ongoing efforts to reach beyond its Constitutional authority, ultimately costing Oklahomans their jobs and the State millions of dollars.

But, regardless of the filing, the new rule will still be going into effect in roughly two weeks, so expect to see changes to overtime rules.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Overtime Rules Will Go into Effect in December appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #1 Northwestern University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #3 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #5 Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of workers have mobilized in France this summer to protest a new law that would make it easier for the French government to hire and fire workers. The bill, which would also relax the limit on working hours, went through parliament without a vote, sparking large scale protests.

Union members are rallying behind Philippe Martinez, leader of the General Confederation of Labor, one of France’s most prominent labor unions. Conflicts between the workers, anti-labor groups and the police have become increasingly heated. Tear gas has been used on protesters as trucks block roadways, shutting down everyday traffic in the city. Protesters and police officers have been injured. At this point, large-scale violence has yet to spread across the entire city, but it has made a visual impact on some of Paris’ most famous venues, including the Eiffel Tower, which was shut down after workers walked out on strike. The protests may strike a more peaceful note in the coming days, but with railway workers and other labor unions flooding into the city in a show of solidarity, Paris is becoming a powder keg. Images of police detaining protesters with force have gone around the world, painting the French protests as a violent threat to public order.

French labor unrest comes on the heels of the Verizon strike in the U.S., during which strikers effectively pressured Verizon leadership into adding jobs and raising pay after CWA union members spent 45 days on picket lines. The Verizon protest did not have the same violent clashes with police that have occurred in the French labor protests, but the issues at the heart of their actions are similar. Class ideology, and the battle between those eking out a living as middle wage employees versus those securely earning at the top of the food chain, is central to both conflicts.

The Verizon strike, one of the longest and most efficient in recent memory (if Verizon does honor its agreement with the CWA in the future), created inconvenience, inefficiency, and a drop in stock value for Verizon but it never rocked the boat in the same way that the Paris protests have. Perhaps because the Paris protesters have come closer to violence, teetering on the edge with fistfights and riot police, they have been dramatized as more impressive or pressing than the Verizon strike.

However, only time will tell whether the Paris workers will elicit the desired response by organizing rowdier, more dramatic protests. The Verizon protests may not have been as visually poignant but they did achieve the desired result within a relatively narrow time frame and forced the leadership of the company to truly feel the power of their organized labor force.  Paris’ protests are almost cinematic–smoke, screaming, thousands pouring into the streets–but it is important to distinguish the visuals of the protest from the reality on the ground. The Verizon protest was working towards a similar goal, but managed to do so without violent clashes–so perhaps Philippe Martinez should get in touch with the CWA and ask for pointers?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Summer of Strikes: Union Protests in the US and France appeared first on Law Street.

When I last worked in an office (many moons ago) I was one of the millions of workers who are exempt from overtime. I did have some managerial responsibilities but I would not have characterized my job as “executive” or “professional.” Anyone with some common sense and a calendar could have effectively done the work I was doing. But because I was above the $23,660 per year threshold I was not eligible for overtime pay for the extra hours I worked. Depending on the season (my work ebbed and flowed dramatically based on the school calendar), I could work 60 hours a week and still be scrambling to get it all done; I could also be hunting for projects outside of my department just to make up a full work day. I started to think that I MIGHT be better off as an hourly wage worker because then at least I would be getting paid for how much I was working. But under the system, I was sometimes working 20 hours a week for free.

The recent changes in overtime rules are designed to address this concern for many employees who find themselves in a peculiar middle place. They are working more than 40 hours a week, but instead of being paid time and a half for the time they put in over 40 hours, they are barred from compensation for those hours because they make more than $23,660 a year or $455 per week. They are working for free. The recent changes to overtime rules–which will go into effect late this year–will raise the threshold from 23,660 to $47,476 per year. Meaning that all the workers who earn between $23,660 and $47,476 will now be eligible for time and a half–one and a half times their regular wage–for each hour they work beyond the 40-hour work week.

Are these workers going to be better off? Or are we going to place such a burden on employers that we actually do harm to these employees?

All About That Base

Nothing is more exciting than the phrase “let’s do some math!” but to understand the debate surrounding overtime we have to look at the numbers.

The previous $23,660 threshold, which was established in 2004, works out in the following way. Let’s say you have a job where you are right at the $23,660 and not eligible for overtime. If you are working 40 hours a week then the magic of math breaks that down $11.38 an hour gross ($23,660 a year divided by 52 weeks per year divided by 40 hours each week). That’s better than the federal minimum wage. But if you are working 60 hours a week for that same salary with no overtime eligibility, you’re only making $7.58 an hour. That’s barely more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage and in many states it’s actually lower than the required minimum.

If your $23,660 a year job is being a manager at a retail store and you’re working 60 hours a week with no overtime, there is a good chance that you are making less than the employees that you manage. Which seems inconsistent with the whole idea of managers being worth extra pay for their expertise and responsiblities and unfair that you are working for less than the minimum wage or working for free. Either way, you slice it that’s a fairly raw deal.

Under the new rules, which raises the threshold to $47,476 per year or $913 per week, many salaried workers are now entitled to overtime pay. In the same scenario as before–with a worker earning $23,660 per year–he or she would be paid the same 11.38 for a 40 hour work week. But for a 60-hour work week, that worker would make an average of 13.27 per hour, when you include the 20 hours of time and a half pay. That is a considerable improvement from the $7.58 per hour that he or she would earn without overtime.

In the video below, PBS NewsHour gives a brief explanation of how the overtime regulations currently work and what the proposed changes will do for workers.

How Businesses Might Respond

There are a few points to unpack from that video in terms of the arguments and counter-arguments for overtime. The reason that some people don’t think this is a sound policy is because employers are likely to react in several ways which could have negative consequences for employees.

The first way they might react is by reducing hours for workers who would be newly eligible for overtime and hiring multiple part-time workers instead in order to keep their labor costs about the same as they were before the change in the rules.

But is this necessarily a bad thing for the existing workers? Maybe not. Currently, a worker who is putting in 60 hours a week for a salary of $36,000 a year won’t be losing any money if their company reduces them to 40 hours a week and then hires someone else to work for 20 hours a week to avoid paying overtime. In fact, if you think about your time as having a monetary value you are getting more money because you are getting 20 extra hours a week back in time. The trickier scenario is a company that decides to change from one employee working 60 hours a week to two employees working 30 hours each–while also reducing the salary of the original employee or paying them on an hourly basis. This would, in fact, be a reduction in that worker’s total wages from $36,000 to about $27,000 per year (assuming that the hourly rate was the same).

That’s a significant decrease and a trade that many employees might not want to make for 30 extra hours a week. In a job market that had more positions available, those individuals would be able to get a second job for 30 hours a week. If it had a comparable salary they would actually be doubling their income. But in an economy where there isn’t a second job to take on with your extra time, this could be financially devastating.

In fact, some economists argue that increasing the threshold for overtime eligibility would be a good thing overall because it will help create jobs. Some employers will choose the second option of splitting one job into two. This change could be a mixed blessing for workers–a source of more jobs even if it might depress wages.

Another way employers might respond is by increasing salaries for workers to the new $47,476 per year cap, thereby rendering them ineligible for overtime. For workers who are close to that level, it may just be cheaper for employers to pay an extra few thousand dollars a year than to deal with the added hassle of calculating overtime pay or the added expense of paying it. Workers in that situation will get a raise.

In the video below, the Department of Labor explains the history of overtime as well as the recent rule change:

Obviously increasing labor costs places a burden on employers and some employers will have difficulty accommodating. The argument against increasing the overtime threshold essentially boils down to not wanting workers to lose what they already have in an effort to get a deal that is fairer. Instead of elevating worker wages, changes in overtime may decrease worker pay overall and alter the flexibility that some workers enjoy.

One of the benefits of being overtime exempt, some argue, is that you have more freedom from your employer to work a 30-hour week to make up for the 60-hour week you had to work. That was my experience when I was working–although culturally at the office it may breed resentment when other employees see you leaving early or not working Fridays if they don’t also see you working late or doing some of your tasks from home on the weekends. But for many workers, the mythical 30-hour work week never comes and so employees have essentially just charitably donated hundreds of hours of their time to their employers. Or they have worked as “managers” for less than the minimum wage.

The greatest danger that this change in overtime rules presents is that employers may cut workers and not replace them, making the unemployment situation worse. For some companies that will undoubtedly be the case and these businesses will take hits in productivity and be run by skeleton crews. But it is unclear whether, on balance, the changes will do more harm than good or more good than harm. And it is hard to anticipate how many workers will be cut versus how many will get raises. It’s even harder to know beforehand whether this change will be worth it for the overall health of the economy.

Conclusion

If you look at the numbers an increase in overtime benefits is undoubtedly helpful for those workers who currently are putting in more than 40 hours a week at their jobs. They will be more fairly compensated for the hours they work. But the larger effects on the economy are tricky to determine. Depending on how employers react, and how much of an increase in labor costs employers can absorb, this change can have serious negative impacts as well.

There will undoubtedly be some job loss and wage depression, as well as job gains and wage increases. As we get closer to the December 1 deadline when this change will go into effect, there will probably be more predictions about how this will ultimately shake out. But the fairness argument that workers should be paid for the time that they work when they aren’t actually making the high salaries for an executive or professional role is hard to refute.

Resources

U.S. Department of Labor: Final Rule: Overtime

U.S. Department of Labor: Questions and Answers

US News: Are The New Overtime Rules About To Boost Your Paycheck?

The Atlantic: Overtime Pay For Millions of Workers

Bloomberg: Obama’s Overtime Rule Defies Econ 101

The Hill: Senate GOP Files Motion To Roll Back Obama Overtime Rule

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Overtime Changes: Is it Time for More Time and a Half? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever worked retail before you should be familiar with “on-call” scheduling. If not, think of it as a kind of shift limbo, where employees are told whether or not to report to work a day or less before the scheduled shift. But according to New York’s attorney general this common staffing practice could be criminal, violating New York Labor laws.

According to the New York Times, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to retailers Friday including Gap, Target, JC Penney, Abercrombie & Fitch, Sears and several others questioning the practice. In the letters Schneiderman wrote:

If the employee is told that his or her services are not needed, the employee will receive no pay for that day. For many workers, that is too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay.

The on-call system currently allows retailers to adjust their staff depending on the projected volume of customers on a given day. These shifts are used as a cost saving measure in order to eliminate potential over-staffing or under-staffing.

In the letters Schneiderman said that the “on-call” practice could be potentially violating a New York law that says employees who report for a scheduled shift on any day have to be paid for at least four hours at the basic minimum hourly wage.

Reuters contacted some accused of the retailers who all invariably denied the allegations writing:

Target said workers are informed of their schedules 10 days before the start of a work week and it does not employ ‘on-call’ shifts. JC Penney said it has a policy against on-call scheduling. The Gap said it is committed to ‘sustainable scheduling practices’ and is conducting research on the matter.

While the U.S. Labor Department is reportedly looking into the matter, the 13 retailers have until May 4 to provide information on how they schedule employee shifts.

As someone who has worked in retail, I can tell you that the last thing you want is an on-call shift. They’re unpredictable and tie up your schedule. When given one of these shifts you’re forced to keep your schedule open in case you might be needed, but if not your wallet is out of luck, and it’s usually too late to make alternate plans. Requiring retailers to pay a minimum wage for workers slighted by these shifts seems only fair. America is ready for retailers and other big businesses to start showing that they respect their workers, and don’t just take them for granted.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NY Attorney General Questions Legality of On-Call Retail Shifts appeared first on Law Street.

“Natural” and “organic” labels on food have become a tremendously popular–and tremendously profitable–means of discussing, buying, and selling food.

But what do we really know about what it means when those $4.99 cherry tomatoes are labeled as “organic,” or when that chicken is marketed as “all natural”? And who are we really concerned about when we talk about food labels–only consumers, or the people who produce our food, as well?

 What’s so natural about “natural”?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t seem to have a clear answer to this question. In regards to the definition of “natural” food, the FDA’s website states that it:

Has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Without any legally binding regulations to mark which foods can be sold as “natural” and which cannot, the meaning of the label is ambiguous at best. Since “natural” foods are defined inconsistently–perhaps in whatever way sells best–the label is often criticized as being both misleading and meaningless.

The definition of “natural” is, however, regulated for meat and poultry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Safety Inspection Service requires that, in the case of meat and poultry labeling, “natural” must mean:

A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).

This emphasis on fundamentally altering the product means that the natural label is determined not by the process of raising the animals involved, but in their preparation for being sent to grocery stores after death. This means that what is fed to animals before their death is not regulated by a “natural” label. As a Take Action petition for banning “natural” labels that confuse customers reminds us, this means that:

Meat labeled as ‘natural’ can come from animals that were raised with daily doses of antibiotics and other drugs, given artificial growth hormones, fed genetically engineered soy and corn feed and other artificial ingredients and continually confined indoors.

 How organic is “organic”?

The definitions of “organic” are more legally binding than those of “natural.” According to the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA), there are standards of “organic farming” that determine whether or not a food item can be labeled and sold as organic. This emphasis on organic as a farming process means that organic definitions are less about ingredients and more about the process of growing and considering the treatment of the plants that were harvested for food.

However, this also means that–especially due to the many kinds of organic labels–foods marketed as “organic” can still be full of chemicals. An informal investigation of Whole Foods organic products by Duke University senior Emma Loewe revealed many additives that are permissible under organic labeling. She writes,

Over the course of my search, I came across organic trail mix that featured Silicon Dioxide, Cirtric Acids and Maltodextrin. Try saying that five times fast. The canned goods aisle brought me to organic soup made up of sodium citrate and a dash of ‘cheese flavor’ for good measure. The organic cereal I picked up was made with vegetable glycerin—a common additive in cosmetics and soaps because of its cooling effect on the skin.

These additives are permitted under “organic” labels largely because there are different kinds of organic. According to the National Science Foundation, the different means of organic phrasing–100 percent organic, organic, made with organic ingredients, and others–are held to a diversity of legal standards. In order to use the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Seal, foods claiming to be 100 percent organic must be made with 100 percent organic ingredients, excluding water and salt. Foods using the label “organic” must have 95-99 percent organic ingredients. Foods can still call themselves organic by saying they are “made with organic ingredients” if between 70 and 84 percent of the ingredients are organic.

This brings us back to the question: what does it mean to be an “organic ingredient”? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the regulations for crops and animals are as follows:

Organic crops. The USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used.

Organic livestock. The USDA organic seal verifies that producers met animal health and welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors.

Vague statements like “access to the outdoors” and “prohibited pesticides” raise a great number of questions and criticisms regarding loopholes in the standards of organic labeling.

 From the Farm: Labor and Labels

Discussions about food labels so often focus exclusively on the health of people consuming the food. However, these conversations generally erase a bigger conversation about health, that is, the health of the farm workers who are the human backbone of agriculture in this country.

Advocates hope that efforts like these and others, such as emphases on broader immigration reform and health care, can bring a more total picture of health into the conversation about the health issues surrounding “organic” farming and “natural” foods.

So Are “Natural” and “Organic” Foods Actually Healthier?

It is important to determine whose health we are asking about when we discuss the healthiness of “organic” and “natural” foods. Those who consider the health of farm workers that produce foods labeled “organic” and “natural,” worry that the production of these foods can generate horrible health consequences for the humans involved in the process.

As to the question of “is it healthier to consume these foods?”, the answer is perhaps not. It’s important to remember that many large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, own organic brands, which links organic brands to larger environmental devastation and labor exploitation that negatively impact global health.

Given the legal impotence and inconsistency of the label “natural” advocates against the labels argue that foods with this label have anything in common other than their respective corporations’ attempt to tap into a market that wants to eat “natural” foods. Regarding the consumption of “organic” foods, the Mayo Clinic states that while the jury is technically still out, studies conducted over the past fifty years do not make a convincing argument that there are any significant differences in nutritional content between “organic” and non-organic foods. So, next time you go to your grocery store, you may want to keep a close eye on more than just the labels on your food.

Resources

Primary

Food and Drug Administration: What is the Meaning of ‘Natural’ on the Label of Food?

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms

U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Organic Program

Environmental Protection Agency: Organic Farming

Additional

Farmworker Justice: Home

Agricultural Justice Project: Home

Grist: Workers on Organic Farms are Treated as Poorly as Their Conventional Counterparts

TakeAction: Stop Confusing Consumers: Ban the ‘Natural’ Label

EcoWatch: Organic Labeling: What You Need to Know

NaturallySavvy: The USDA Organic Program Faces Criticism

EarthJustice: Pesticides: The Workplace Hazard the EPA is Ignoring

Salon: California’s Rampant Farm-Labor Abuse

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Natural or Organic: Not Just the Labels on Our Food appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.