In honor of International Women’s Day, organizers of the Women’s March have declared March 8 “A Day Without a Woman.” Here’s what you need to know about the strike and how you can get involved.

How Can I Participate?

According to the organizers’ website, anyone, anywhere can participate in “A Day Without a Woman” in the following ways:

1. Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor
2. Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).
3. Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman
4. Male allies lean into care giving on March 8, and use the day to call out decision-makers at the workplace and in the government to extend equal pay and adequate paid family leave for women.

According to the Huffington Post, all 16 public schools in Alexandria, Virginia, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools in North Carolina, and at least one preschool in Brooklyn, New York, have canceled classes Wednesday in anticipation of staff shortages since the vast majority of teachers are women.

Some businesses and organizations, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, have also chosen to close their doors in solidarity with the strike.

What Is the Goal of “A Day Without a Woman”?

The goal of A Day Without a Woman is to both oppose President Donald Trump and “highlight the economic power and significance that women have in the US and global economies, while calling attention to the economic injustices women and gender nonconforming people continue to face.” The strike hopes to promote awareness for women’s equality issues including: the gender pay gap, paid family leave, and reproductive rights.

Will It Work?

It’s hard to say. The only way a strike works is if people actually participate. As Quartz points out, privileged women are more likely to be the ones participating in the strike. A large number of working-class women are expected to abstain from the strike due to the potential repercussions they could face.

Put simply, many women can’t afford to take off an unpaid day of work, or lack any paid time off. Others fear losing their jobs if they strike. In February, a story about twelve employees at the I Don’t Car Bar & Grill in Catoosa, Oklahoma went viral after they were fired via text for staying home to participate in the Immigrant Strike.

The women strike organizers address the issue of privilege, writing:

We must be diligent and look out for each other, using our privilege on behalf of others when it is called for. Social activism is not a privilege. It is a necessity born out of a moral imperative and an imminent threat.

Given the historic number of participants who attended Women’s March events across the country, this strike has the potential to be extremely disruptive. But if even a mere fraction of paid and unpaid women stay home on Wednesday, the organizers will have proven their point–the world needs women!

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 What is the “Day Without A Woman” Strike? appeared first on Law Street.

In January, almost half a million people joined the Women’s March in Washington, DC while tens of thousands more marched in smaller protests across the country. The Women’s March has been called the largest single day protest in recorded American history–and the organizers behind the march are not letting their momentum fade. This week, they announced plans for a “Day Without a Woman,” a general strike for women across the country and perhaps even around the globe.

Details on when the strike will take place have yet to be released but a surge of support is evident across social media platforms. The successful Women’s Strike on Inauguration Day, during which over 7,000 workers went on strike from “both paid and unpaid work,” could serve as a valuable template for organizers of a national strike. Those who marched in January seem ready and willing to strike so the challenge for the organizers may not be mass participation but instead efficacy.

Strikes often shut down a single sector of a single industry–a school, a factory, a mine–but they can also go city or district-wide, forcing local governments and employers to cave under pressure. Shutting down a company on a national level is a herculean task, but it can be done–however, the Women’s March organizers are not targeting a single company, or even a single industry. Their vision involves women (and men who would strike in solidarity) striking in the same vein as the Black Monday protests for women’s reproductive health that took place in Poland in 2016–a national day of strike in every industry, at every level, so large that it could not be represented by a single union or cause.

This type of strike could make for a second wave of impressive protests across the nation but it won’t necessarily cripple the economy of the country–strikers will take a vacation day or an unpaid day off and then return to work the next day. The strikers themselves will be the ones who will have to make a sacrifice, as their employers likely won’t lose any money from an employee being absent for a single day.

The Black Monday strikes were powerful but did not come close to stalling the economy of Poland. Unions have historically found strength in the length of their strikes–going without heat, teachers, or transport infuriates the public and makes a company or regulator cave to public demand for a return to usual service. However, when a strike is not concentrated on a single industry, public services and the general economy continue to operate as per usual. Another challenge for the strike will be laying out a concise set of demands. The Black Monday protests were targeted toward a single abortion bill, which ultimately did not pass, whereas the Women’s Strike would be working against a larger set of issues and legislation.

The Women’s Strike is only in its infancy, barely even a viable practice at the moment, yet it seems to be a largely symbolic act. That being said, a national strike can still open important dialogues, influence the opinions of elected officials, and engage citizens who may have been apathetic in the past. Ultimately, the strike will not disrupt the American economy but it will unite women in a common act of civil disobedience.

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 The Challenges of Building a National Women’s Strike appeared first on Law Street.

A 10-month-long contract dispute has finally come to a head as 36,000 Verizon employees went on strike Wednesday. The strike began after Verizon and the two labor unions that represent Verizon’s wireline service workers could not reach an agreement before the two unions’ proposed deadline of 6 am, Wednesday. On Thursday, a large group of low-wage employees in other industries walked out of work in an effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Both the strike and the fight for $15 protest come after New York and California passed laws to increase their minimum wage laws. Some point to this as a pattern, in which low-wage workers are finally trying to make up for years of stagnant pay and economic hardship. For others, this is merely another blip in the perennial struggle between labor and business. Either way, this is one of the largest strikes in recent history and has quickly become a political issue.

What do both sides want?

The primary point of disagreement between Verizon and its workers is the company’s desire to have more flexibility with its workforce and the workers’ hope for sustained job security. Verizon argues that the company needs to adjust to meet the changing economy’s demands. It claims that it has offered reasonable solutions to prevent benefit costs from increasing dramatically and has offered significant pay increases. Meanwhile, workers argue that it is unfair for their company to force them to relocate and travel long distances for work, noting that if they refuse to do so they will likely lose their jobs.

An interesting aspect of the strike is that it seems to have less to do with wages specifically. Verizon has offered a 6.5 percent pay increase and most of the two unions’ complaints have not focused on wages. Verizon frames the negotiations as an effort to allow the company to get with the times, while workers argue that the contract should focus on protecting decent paying middle-class jobs.

Some Context

Underlying the negotiations is the changing importance of the wireline side of Verizon’s business. As Verizon shifts its focus to its rapidly expanding wireless service, its wireline service–which includes television, phone, and internet–has actually decreased. The wireless side of the company, which is largely ununionized, has seen its profits soar while the more costly wireline service has contracted slightly as landline phone and television service becomes less popular. In light of this change, the company wants to cut costs on the less profitable component of its business by stretching its workers more.

While the workers are right when they say Verizon’s profits have soared in recent years, the bulk of that increase came from the wireless business. Over the last several years, Verizon has made a clear effort to transition much of its business to wireless. In 2013, Verizon Communications bought Vodaphone out of its 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless, giving the company full control over the wireless side of the business. In February 2015, Verizon sold a large chunk of its landline service to Frontier Communications. The deal, which included most of the company’s wireline infrastructure in the western part of the United States, allowed Verizon to buy additional wireless spectrum, further shifting its business in that direction. Aside from its recent announcement to bring FIOS infrastructure to Boston, Massachusetts, Verizon has been relatively uninterested in expanding its wireline service.

So Who’s Right?

Naturally, this question is the most difficult to answer. But when you take a closer look at the dynamics at play it tells us a lot about current labor dynamics in the United States. Can Verizon’s wireline business continue to be a source of good, middle-class jobs as it has been for decades, given that the company wants to shift toward wireless? More to the point, what happens to workers when technological and economic shifts make certain businesses less profitable? Unfortunately, these are questions that we probably won’t have a consensus on anytime soon, if ever.

According to a press release from Verizon, the workers on strike make an average of $130,000 per year, including salary and benefits, which indicates that wages aren’t the entire problem. It also doesn’t seem like the workers went on strike because their wages aren’t high enough. Instead, they fear that Verizon is trying to make it easier to ship jobs overseas and continue its shift away from wireline services. Although there is a significant market for Verizon FIOS, its fiber-optic internet service, its landline telephone, and video services are not as profitable as they have been in recent decades.

The exact details behind the negotiations are hard to pin down, but the dispute may end up taking some time to resolve. In the meantime, Verizon has been training non-union workers to fill in for the strikers. But even if the dispute is settled soon, it seems likely that the underlying debate will continue for quite some time. As Bernie Sanders gains national attention on a campaign to fight for workers and the push to increase the minimum wage maintains the spotlight, developed economies will have to answer some tough questions about the future of middle-class jobs in a time of rapid technological change.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on with the Verizon Strike? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, over sixty schools in Detroit were closed due to teacher absences as teachers went on strike against horrific conditions in the city’s schools. Teachers are outraged by both the physical conditions of the schools (mold, rot, etc…) and by the enormous class sizes that the school district was forced to adopt after major budget cuts. The school district is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and the state legislature has seemingly preoccupied itself with the bottom line rather than the conditions within the school district. So, teachers called in sick this week to protest their working conditions, effectively shutting down the school system for days.

The Detroit Federation of Teachers, the city’s primary teachers’ union, has not called for an official strike. However, its former President Steve Conn, who was ousted from the presidency in 2014, does take credit for organizing the “sickout.” This week’s empty classrooms frustrated many parents and lawmakers but the sickout did strike a chord with city leadership. Mayor Mike Duggan conducted an inspection of several schools this week and has announced plans for further health and safety inspections across the school district.

Some view the sickouts as a step in the wrong direction, arguing that the teachers’ actions will only further isolate decision-makers in the state legislature. Yet the sickout can also been hailed as a genius move to sidestep the bureaucracy and effectively protest non-violently. Organizing a strike through formal channels takes a great deal of time and formal procedures but the sickout was pulled together quickly and effectively because it required relatively little formal protest organization. By using their sick days, teachers were simultaneously protesting and using the personal time legally allotted to them, which may protect them from harsh retributions from anti-reform sympathizers. Every teacher is entitled to a set number of personal days and they can use them however they see fit.

Teacher strikes are devastating to any school district as they deny students crucial time in the classroom, but they are also a critical tool for reforming our nation’s schools. Detroit has now captured national attention, placing significant pressure on state and city officials to act quickly. As the teachers return to their hazardous classrooms, the city leadership and the state legislature have the responsibility to make health and safety a priority for the school district. Meetings have already been arranged (although no date has been set) to discuss health and safety reform. The sickout only lasted a few short days, and time will tell if it achieved the desired results, but it did shine a spotlight on conditions that few outside of the Detroit school system were aware of before this week. The sickout is an unconventional tool but it may be exactly what many organizations are looking for: a peaceful way to protest that does not impose on the quality of life of the protesters. Taking a sick day is an inconvenience, but for many it is preferable to going on a formal strike and forgoing wages and health benefits. The average teacher only has a handful of sick days every year so spending even one is a sacrifice, but the publicity that Detroit teachers have garnered may inspire other suffering school districts to follow in their footsteps.

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 What Does Detroit’s “Sickout” Mean for the Future? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a chilly November afternoon in Indiana. Simple, God-fearing folks from Fort Wayne to Evansville have gathered with friends and family to celebrate the football game happening in South Bend, just as they do every year. The game would give the winner a good shot at college football’s national championship, and give one team’s fans bragging rights throughout the country for at least a year. But this year there would be no bragging rights for either Notre Dame or USC fans because there would be no game. Hours before kickoff, Notre Dame quarterback Josef Steinbeck (a transfer from Michigan) convinced his team to strike over the team’s early curfew and average salaries. Notre Dame University, Steinbeck’s employer, was powerless because Steinbeck was protected by a big, powerful, union.

This Thayer-esque sports tragedy is exactly the type of yarn being spun by opponents of unions in college football, like United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the Wall Street Journal. These stories have the potential to both entertain and galvanize the casual fan into opposing collective bargaining for college football players, but are they cautionary tales or tall tales?

Generally, unionized workers are permitted to strike only for economic concessions or due to an unfair labor practice (ULP) committed by their employer.  If a union strikes for an economic concession that’s plainly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (e.g. strike to compel an employer to raise minimum salaries higher than the CBA permits), a union risks committing a ULP itself, which could lead to fines, sanctions, or even decertification of the union. Unions also can’t strike unless they’ve given ten days notice to their employer, and they can’t strike at all if their CBA contains a no-strike provision. Rather than striking or hashing out issues via proletariat revolution, union complaints are usually either withdrawn or settled.

Still, work stoppages do happen (although apparently not in Canada). In sports though, it’s often not at the behest of the union.  A glimpse at work stoppages in professional sports shows that most are caused when owners refuse to permit the players to work (lockout) rather than the players refusing to play for the owners (strike). In baseball, strikes outnumber lockouts but mainly because the MLB’s perplexing antitrust-exemption prevents players from using alternate means to litigate their beef with management. In other sports, lockouts have typically arisen when CBAs between ownership and players have expired, and the two sides have not agreed upon a new contract. Since it takes two to tango, an unbiased observer would see owners just as responsible for sports stoppages as players are.

Even if the improbable did happen and unionized college players went on strike, would they deserve our resentment? The National College Players Association (NCPA) would be the presumptive union representing most college sports teams, and their demands are fairly modest requests regarding player safety, scholarship guarantees, and the ability to transfer. If a school reneged on one of these issues mid-season and still expected its football player to provide it with its multi-million dollar revenue stream, is the student the bad guy? Not in any story I’ve ever read.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Shaynedwyer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post The Fable of the College Football Strike appeared first on Law Street.