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.

Since 1977, unions that have been designated as the exclusive bargaining representatives for both private and public sector employees have been allowed to require all employees, union and non-union members, to pay union dues. These union dues, paid by both union and non-union members, cover the designated union’s “agency” costs, which in return, obligates the union to represent and bargain for benefits and working conditions for all workers in that unit, including non-union members. The Supreme Court has recognized that this involves “close questions under the First Amendment,” and the Court has made it clear that forcing non-union members to pay dues that would cover the union’s political or ideological activity violates the First Amendment.

Over the past four decades, this ruling of mandatory union dues found in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education has been constantly criticized and challenged in the Court. Recently, in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the Supreme Court was posed with the question by a group of California teachers on whether requiring non-union members in the public-sector to affirmatively opt out of paying nonchargeable portions of the agency fees each year violates their First Amendment rights. Read on to learn the effects of the Supreme Court issuing a decision with only eight justices, and to take a look at the court’s decision

Changes in Public Sector Labor

In 1977, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that public workers have the right to join together and form a union that exclusively represents them in collective bargaining negotiations. The court also ruled that union members can vote to collect a “fair share” fee from all workers who receive union benefits “germane” to collective bargaining, which are “service charges used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment purposes.” This means that when workers vote to form a union, they can also decide that “all workers, regardless if they are union members, should share the cost of union representation, since all workers benefit from the bargaining agreements” according to AFSCME. However, the Court did determine that the First Amendment requires unions to provide workers with a means of opting out from dues that are not “germane” to collective bargaining. Meaning, workers must have a means to opt out of paying for dues related to political activities, including, activity related to political views, on behalf of political candidates, or toward the advancement of other ideological causes. According to SCOTUS:

The Constitution requires that a union’s expenditures for ideological causes not germane to to its duties as a collective bargaining representative be financed from charges, dues or assessments paid by employees who do not object to its advancing such causes and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment.

Following this decision, in 2012, in Knox v. SEIU, the Supreme Court determined that the longstanding precedent that the First Amendment demands that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to “opt out” of special fees, was insufficient.  In a 7-2 decision, the majority ruled that it’s unconstitutional to allow a “public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed.”

The next major case heard in the Supreme Court in 2014, Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that “personal assistants” that provide homecare services cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they do not wish to join, since they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes. Since these home health care workers are not truly state employees, yet they are “partial-public employees,” Abood should not apply, and thus these partial-public employees are not required to pay partial dues known as “agency fees.” This Court’s decision led some unions to believe that the Court may be ready to overturn Abood and free all public-sector workers from compulsory dues. To gain a perspective of the effects of this ruling, the year following this decision, SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, which originally claimed about 60 percent of the caregivers in the state subsidy programs covered by this case, later reported that it only represents 30 percent of the state subsidy caregivers (about 13,000 in-home Illinois caregivers left SEIU) and cost the SEIU an estimated $5 million in member dues.

Recent Challenge to Union Dues 

#SCOTUS signals support for plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. CTA case, via @politico: https://t.co/ptGIJ5S9cB pic.twitter.com/6Znbe1mcWR

— 50CAN (@FiftyCAN) January 12, 2016

The most recent case heard in the Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association et al., challenged Abood and compulsory agency fees.

This case was brought by 10 California teachers, including Rebecca Friedrich who was the lead plaintiff, and a teachers group, Christian Educators Association International in California. According to California law, public employees who refuse to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining.

Oral Arguments with Scalia; Court’s Ruling Without Scalia

In January 2016, the oral arguments were delivered for this case.

The plaintiffs tried to convince the Court to overturn Abood by arguing that agency fees violate their First Amendment rights, because bargaining with the state is no different from lobbying, as it is “inherently political.” They further argued that California Teachers Association does not “represent their interests on bargaining issues covered by fair-share fees.” Thus, California should not force them to financially support a union they disagree with. The Center for Individual Rights, who represented these plaintiffs stated that:

Typically, California teacher union dues cost upwards of a $1,000 per year. Although California law allows teachers to opt-out of the thirty percent or so of their dues devoted to overt political lobbying, they may not opt out of the sixty to seventy percent of their dues the union determines is devoted to collective bargaining. Requiring teachers to pay these “agency fees” assumes that collective bargaining is non-political.  But bargaining with local governments is inherently political. Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions rather than on building parks, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial.

On the other hand, the defendants in this case, California Teachers Association, argue that, according to Huffington Post, that:

Since unions must represent members and non-members, it’s appropriate to require all who benefit from negotiations to share the costs. The loss of money from “free-riders” – those who benefit without paying – would threaten a union’s ability to effectively represent employees.

Furthermore, the defendants argued that they represent the views of the majority, and anyone who disagrees can speak up. They also say the plaintiffs:

Are simply wrong in declaring that it ‘does not make a First Amendment difference’ whether speech is part of lobbying the Legislature to enact a law or of negotiating a contract with the public employer. […] unlike lobbying, collective bargaining is a process of making binding collective agreements with obligations on both sides.

During and after the oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared “ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment.” Justice Antonin Scalia was said to be the swing vote for this case. He had a history of endorsing union’s positions, but during the oral arguments for Friedrichs, Scalia “tore into core arguments made by the union and government attorneys.” Despite Scalia’s passing in February, the Court moved forward and handed down their decision at the end of March, with a 4 to 4 tie. A split decision at the Supreme Court level means that the lower court’s ruling will be upheld and the laws will be left in place until a future case challenges this issue. Thus, in the meantime, Abood will not be overruled and the 25 states and D.C. that require compulsory union dues can lawfully continue to require non-members to pay agency fees to support union’s collective bargaining agreements.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

The Center for Individual Rights announced that it will request a rehearing. According to the Supreme Court rules, a rehearing request must be filed within twenty-five days following the March 29th ruling. According to SCOTUSBlog: “It would require the votes of five Justices to order such a reconsideration, and one of the five must have been one who had joined in the decision.”

Though this is a grand victory for unions, the future of unions is still up in the air and largely depends on who replaces Scalia. Until then, the tension will continue between union supporters and anti-union advocates.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

SCOTUS Blog: Opinion Analysis: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Brief of Respondents

Additional

SCOTUS Blog: Argument Preview: Is Abood in Trouble? 
The Atlantic: What will become of Public-Sector Union’s Now?

The Center for Individual Rights: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Huffington Post: This Supreme Court Case Could Significantly Weaken Teacher Unions

On Labor: Cases in the Pipeline: Challenges to Union Security Clauses

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Huffington Post.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Friedrichs v. CTA: A Big SCOTUS Win for Unions, But Not Over Yet appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between student athletes and the schools for which they play has operated increasingly in a gray area in recent years. Student athletes are technically students, but in many ways–particularly when it comes to the money they generate for their schools–their relationships to the colleges and universities are significantly different from non-student athletes. In recognition of the ambiguity of this gray area, and the desire to contribute to discussions about their program, football players at Northwestern University recently tried to unionize. After a long back-and-forth, their application was effectively turned down by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), meaning the players cannot unionize.

The argument made by the students looking to unionize was based on something that is pretty well known for permeating college sports–money. Universities can make a hefty chunk of change from having strong college sports teams, particularly football. According to the Department of Education, college football revenue generated by Division 1 teams topped $3.4 billion in 2013. For comparison, that number wasn’t too far from the $3.6 billion in revenue generated by the National Hockey League (NHL) in 2013.

But a team is only as good as its players, and while players do receive plenty from the arrangement in the form of publicity, experience, and sometimes a straight shot to the big leagues, the Northwestern football players were arguing that they deserve a more prominent seat at the table. Kain Colter, a former co-captain of Northwestern’s team, explained that being a football player at the school was essentially a job. CNN summed his testimony at the NLRB hearing to that effect:

He said football was dominating his college experience, consuming up to 60 hours a week during the season and up to 20 hours the rest of the year, he said. He and his teammates never got summer and winter breaks, couldn’t schedule certain classes and were required to adhere to dozens of rules or risk losing their scholarships.

As a result of that environment, Colter and the other Northwestern players who voted to unionize, as well as players from other schools involved in the movement, argued that they would like to receive benefits like free tuition or more extensive medical coverage.

However, that particular argument wasn’t convincing for the NLRB board, which denied to take jurisdiction over the application to unionize. By doing so, the board essentially stopped the students’ ability to join or create a union. Northwestern University brought up that its student-athletes are students first, not employees, an important distinction if the players were to unionize. Additionally, officials from the school expressed confusion as to why Northwestern was the focus of this push, given that Northwestern isn’t generally regarded as a football powerhouse. Additionally, a big concern for the board appeared to be that it would create an unfair advantage for students who attend private universities, because the ruling wouldn’t apply to students at public universities.

The Northwestern players’ attempts to form a union have been pretty much quashed, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. Players at public universities could try their luck with various state institutions. Additionally some of the things that the players are fighting for, like improved medical care, are consistent with broader discussions in the football community and the NFL about player safety. As the line between student-athlete and athlete continue to blur, and college football promises to continuing growing, these are essential issues that schools will have to contend with.

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 Northwestern Football Players Lose Fight to Unionize appeared first on Law Street.

The workers’ compensation system around the nation has been complicated for decades. Particularly in California, a measure from the early 2000s is now coming to light as more and more women are trying to get workers’ compensation. There’s a battle raging over whether or not there’s an inherent gender bias in the handling of workers’ compensation claims in California; the concern is that women who try to get workers’ compensation are “penalized” for gender-related conditions like pregnancies and menopause. Read on to learn about the gender bias in worker compensations claims in California, what’s being done, and a look at the discussions happening in other states.

What is workers’ compensation?

Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance provided in the workplace that can consist of wage replacements and medical benefits for employees who were injured while working. Usually by accepting these funds, employees acknowledge that they will not sue their employers for negligence. Workers who are permanently disabled while on the job receive compensation from insurers based on a calculation of the level of disability and what portion of the injury is linked to their jobs. Insurers may also weigh the worker’s previous health conditions or prior injuries. In California specifically, the process is overseen by the Division of Workers’ Compensation which:

Monitors the administration of workers’ compensation claims, and provides administrative and judicial services to assist in resolving disputes that arise in connection with claims for workers’ compensation benefits.

DWC’s mission is to minimize the adverse impact of work-related injuries on California employees and employers.

State of Workers’ Compensation

If you were to look at the statistics, it looks like fewer and fewer people nationwide are getting hurt at work, though that isn’t exactly the case.

A report came out recently about how the system is reporting very low numbers. The real reason? Changing the circumstances for what qualifies as a workplace injury, and the simple dissolution of programs that pay for such accidents. According to the Washington Post, the number of people injured at work is probably twice what is reported because people fear losing their jobs. Or people, like those in the construction industry, are misclassified as independent contractors.

The Washington Post recently discussed the national state of workers’ compensation problems, saying:

Since 2003, the investigation found, 33 states have weakened their workers’ compensation regulations, scaling back the procedures that will be covered and the duration for which benefits are offered. In addition, while businesses often push for reforms on the grounds that workers’ compensation costs are out of control, data shows that premiums are lower than they’ve been at any point since the early 1990s.

California’s Belabored Workers’ Compensation Program

Workers’ compensation programs have received complaints that they are inherently flawed throughout the United States. Lately the debate has been particularly focused in California. Complaints come from the fact that outside medical reviewers look at the cases and after brief exams or only by reading the medical records can deny recommended treatments or rule that injuries aren’t work-related.

Reform Under Governor Schwarenegger 

Some problems with the California system can be traced back to a bill that reformed the program, which was signed in 2004 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It changed what types of injuries qualified under the program, how long certain employees would receive coverage after being injured, and required the injured employees to choose from a specific pool of independent doctors. At the time, Schwarzenegger said:

This bill completes a process that brought together Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, and all the affected parties to produce billions of dollars in savings, protect workers, and root out fraud and waste in the system. No longer will workers’ compensation be the poison of our economy. Our message to the rest of the country and the world is that California is open for business. We are making our state once again a powerful, job-creating machine.

At that time, California employers were paying the highest workers’ comp rates in the nation: $6.33 for every $100 in payroll, compared to a national average of $2.46.

Although the bill was supposed to save Californians money, there were some problems with it. The new bill made it more difficult for workers to get in to see doctors and left them waiting for months without any answers to their problems.

Reform Under Governor Brown 

In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown put some of the power back in the hands of the state, deciding that disputes should be handled by independent medical reviewers whose decisions cannot be overturned. The law was a bit quirky, as this didn’t just apply to the new cases, but also retroactively to past requests, and it impacted everything from already-scheduled doctor’s visits to prescription refills. In some cases, treatments were stopped in the middle with little more than an official notice.

This new system also has problems, however, as in recent years reviewers have denied treatment in up to 91 percent of the cases. People who were receiving treatment for years suddenly found themselves left out in the cold, and many had to return to work to continue to pay for the medication they needed.

Christine Baker, who oversees workers’ compensation in California, has stated that the reform is “speeding up the decision making process” and taking the aid away from people who are using it for prescription abuse.

Many of the judges, including John C. Gutierrez, a workers’ comp jurist since the 1980s, are some of the biggest adversaries of the law. According to Gutierrez, “the only interest that’s being protected here is industry and I feel that their financial influence has had an impact on how this legislation came out.” He went on to say that he felt like workers “are losing their voice.”

This is a problem in the state regardless of gender, but when it comes to comparing women and men, there is an even bigger problem looming.

Gender Bias in Workers’ Comp Rulings

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced a bill (AB305) on March 4, 2015 that aims to eliminate the gender bias in workers’ compensation rulings.

This comes after a Bay Area woman who suffers from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which damages the nerves in the hands and often limits movement, was denied workers’ compensation for a strange reason: she was postmenopausal, which meant that she was predisposed to nerve damage. 

The woman enacted the help of attorney Sue Borg who says that she sees many cases where a woman who is injured on the job and files a claim for compensation is “penalized” for things like pregnancies and menopause. “It seems like it should be obvious that we shouldn’t see this, but it happens in insidious ways all the time,” Borg said.

Gonzalez aims to ensure that being female does not constitute a preexisting condition, and hopes to stop the reduction of compensation for female workers based on pregnancies, breast cancer, menopause, osteoporosis, and sexual harassment. All of this discrimination is happening, even though there are laws against gender discrimination in the workplace.

Breast Cancer

One of the biggest problems facing women seeking workers’ compensation is breast cancer. There have been numerous reports of how breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers. According to the Corporate Counsel:

Gutierrez reports that the bill’s supporters claim gender bias in workers’ compensation is a big issue, and one that is “especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers.” For instance, female police officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5 percent disabled, Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would be paid for the injury.

One such case involves a San Francisco firefighter who was denied permanent disability after having to undergo a double mastectomy, as well as an Orange County hotel housekeeper who was injured on the job but only received two percent payment on her claim–despite doctors putting her disability level at 100 percent–due to prior conditions “related to childbirth, obesity, age and naturally occurring events.”

Pregnancy

Pregnancy has always been a fairly controversial issue when it comes to the workplace, but many women are now being denied workers’ compensation due to it, or facing claims that it is the “cause” of the problem. Things like back pain, muscle strain, and injuries caused by fatigue have all been attributed to pregnancy and not the workplace. “I’ve had a child, and if now being a mother is a pre-existing condition in California, I find that unacceptable,” said Christine Pelosi, chair of the California Democratic Party’s women’s caucus.

State Fires Back

The claims were immediately disparaged by the Workers’ Compensation Action Network, which said that payment decisions were never a result of discrimination. According to the Sacramento Business Journal: “A spokesman from Industrial Relations could not immediately produce data on gender-related bias or discrimination, but the agency will look into the matter and respond with its findings.”

Conclusion

The nation, and particularly California, has a lot of work to do in the coming months to try to look at reports and see if there is a problem. If there is, it could mean an inundation of old cases that may be able to be retried, meaning companies could owe a lot of money to women all over the state.

Surely California is only the beginning and more and more states, as well as the federal government, will have to look at their workers’ compensation laws and see if there are problems lurking in them. In the end, the people who don’t get covered by workers’ compensation won’t always work through their pain; many will end up on government subsidies, which means that the tax payers will have to cover the costs.

Resources

Primary

Department of Industrial Relations: Division of Worker’s Compensation California

Department of Industrial Relations: A Guidebook for Injured Workers

Additional

Corporate Counsel: Charges of Gender Bias in Workers’ Compensation

NPR: Injured Workers Suffer as ‘Reforms’ Limit Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Heartland Institute: Schwarzenegger Signs Workers Comp Reform

The New York Times: A Racy Silicon Valley Lawsuit and More Subtle Questions About Sex Discrimination

SF Gate: Gender Bias Rampant in Workers’ Comp Cases, Women’s Groups Charge

ProPublica: The Demolition of Workers’ Comp

NPR: As Workers’ Comp Varies From State to State, Workers Pay the Price

Property Casualty 360: California Workers’ Comp Bill Passes Legislature; Insurer Groups Cautious

BradBlog: Schwarzenegger’s Workers’ Comp ‘Reform’ Killed My Client

“

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Workers’ Compensation: A Flawed System? appeared first on Law Street.

The ideal portrait of a middle class household in the United States usually consists of a steady income, a sizable house, a few cars, yearly family vacations, and weekend outings. This image is rooted in the stereotypical family of the 1950s–a nuclear family residing in the suburbs. Until recently, being middle class in the United States was still reminiscent of that post-war generation of American families. But things have changed, and dramatically so. The middle class is shrinking rapidly, with more people moving down the income ladder. Read on to learn more about the status of the middle class in America and the reasons for its decline.

How to Define the Middle Class

There is no universal definition of middle class, but households that make enough money to live comfortably, take vacations, indulge in entertainment, and save for retirement and college funds can be broadly considered to fit the bill. However, the description of “middle class” can include a broad range of figures, depending on the chosen measurement.

The most common measure used to define middle class is income. The New York Times  has chosen 50 percent above the poverty level ($35,000) for a family of four as the lowest threshold and $100,000 as the highest income for a middle class family. Pew Research Center presented middle class as households ranging from those who make two-thirds ($40,667) to twice ($122,000) the median income. The U.S. Department of Commerce gives a more narrow range, from $50,800 to $122,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau considers middle class families to be those who fall between $20,600 and $102,000.

Other possible measurements could include occupation, education, social values, or some combination of the above. In addition, regional cost of living is often taken into account when categorizing American households. Interestingly, those who make less than $20,000 or more than $150,000 a year still sometimes consider themselves a part of the American middle class depending on where they live and the expenses they have. Essentially, the cohort is almost impossible to define, as each household has different needs. While some can manage to save for retirement on $20,000 a year, other families that may have an income over $100,000 have to pay larger medical or college bills, resulting in zero savings.

How is the American middle class changing?

The U.S. Census Bureau started to track household incomes in 1967. With some ups and downs, the overall income levels tended to increase over the earlier decades. However, starting in 2010 the American middle class has begun to shrink. As of now, 61 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 36 percent don’t contribute anything to retirement, and more than 40 percent work in low-paying jobs in the retail and service sectors.

People ages 30 to 44 are less likely to be middle class, while those who are 65 years and older are more likely to be middle or upper-middle class. As many baby boomers are working past their retirement age, and most of them receive Medicaid and Social Security benefits, households containing those who are 65 years and older are the fastest growing share of the contemporary middle class. The number of adults in middle class households decreased from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. At the same time, the number of adults who now live in upper-income households has gone up from 14 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2013. The share of younger adults, ages 18 to 29, who live in middle class households has fallen dramatically, with more of them moving to the lower class due to staggering unemployment rates.

In addition, family status is an important factor in association with income distribution among the American population. Two-adult households are more likely to be upper-middle class due to the fact that both adults are working, thus increasing the overall family wealth. One-adult households are disproportionately lower income for precisely the same reason. The traditional vision of American middle class families–two adults and children–is now on the decline, constituting only a quarter of middle class households. Some of them surely increased their income, moving to the upper-middle class, probably due to the increased number of women in the workforce.

White Americans are more likely than black Americans and Hispanics to live in middle- to upper-income families. In 2013, half of Black households and 43 percent of Hispanic households were lower income.

Location wise, the number of middle class households has decreased in the Northeast, especially in such states as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

Overall, the dynamics of the middle class in America are changing. In 1967, 53 percent of households were middle class families; in 2010 that share decreased to 43 percent, with some people moving up or down the income ladder.

Why is the American middle class changing?

The middle class in the United States is shrinking for a broad range of reasons that collectively influence the changing dynamics of middle class membership.

The Great Recession 

First and foremost, the Great Recession of 2008 resulted in lower incomes, high unemployment rates, and increased numbers of home foreclosures. It’s estimated that the median net worth (the amount by which assets exceed liabilities) was at $120,600 in 2007; after the recession this number dropped to $77,300. Due to long-term stagnation in wages, median household income has decreased from $56,080 in 1999 to $51,017 in 2012. Simply put, after 2008, many middle class families became lower-income families.

Creation of Low-Income and Part-Time Jobs 

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing market collapse, many middle-income jobs were lost. In response, low-income jobs were created, adding little wealth to American households. Employment in low-skill jobs increased 110 percent between 1980 and 2009, while available middle-skill jobs have risen only 46 percent. At the same time, more and more Americans are working part time as they cannot obtain full-time employment. In 2012, more than 2.5 million Americans were working part time, the highest number since 1993. Clearly, proliferation of low-income and part-time jobs resulted in the overall drop of middle class incomes. Watch the video below to learn more about low-paying jobs in the United States.

The Growing Income Gap

But not all middle class families moved down the income ladder. On the contrary, some households’ incomes skyrocketed instead. The gap between high-income Americans and everybody else reached its apex during the years following the Great Recession. Simply put, the wealth of upper-middle-class households has increased, while middle- and lower-class families’ incomes have declined or didn’t change at all. The upper class is earning roughly 50 percent of the overall national income and is holding 83 percent of all U.S. stocks. At the same time, lower- and middle class families hold only seven percent of the liquid financial assets, and own less than one percent of the country’s wealth.

While the number of millionaires in the United States has increased 16 percent since 2009, the number of children who live in poverty accounted for 21 percent of all children in 2010, the highest percentage in the last 20 years. The growing income gap is especially evident as the wealth of middle class families has diminished, while upper class families experienced significant boosts in their earnings. Watch the video below to learn more about income gap in the United States.

Shift of Jobs Overseas

As multinational corporations are looking to minimize expenses while maximizing  profits, they are shifting their operations overseas. This prompts significant reductions in employment opportunities inside the country as corporations are hiring less in the United States and more in the less-developed parts of the globe. The reason for this is very simple: there are fewer regulations and labor is cheaper. In addition, American companies don’t have to adhere to minimum-wage requirements or pay benefits to the overseas workers, significantly reducing their expenses. It’s estimated that from 1999 to 2008, American companies hired 2.2 million people in other countries, while scrapping 2.1 million positions inside the United States. Not only is it more expensive and difficult to conduct business in the U.S., it’s also much cheaper and more convenient to run a large company abroad.

Increasing Use of Technology in the Workplace

Not only do middle class Americans have to compete with overseas workers, but now they have to compete with computers and machinery. As the use of technology in the workplace rapidly grows, more and more middle class jobs disappear. Now, computers are doing the same jobs that humans used to do decades ago, depleting middle class employment opportunities. Essentially, technology is replacing human labor as computers can complete tasks faster, cheaper, and with more accuracy than human employees. Starting in 2010, the number of people employed as telephone operators, word processors, and typists has declined 63 percent. The share of travel agents has decreased 46 percent, while the number of bookkeepers has plunged 26 percent. In addition, such jobs as check-out cashiers, bank tellers, ticket agents, and secretaries are on the decline, as many businesses use computers instead of employing workers.

One of the recent examples of job technology taking over is “bookBots,” an innovative project at North Carolina State University. Instead of human librarians who retrieve books as students request them, robots are programmed to find requested books, now located within 18,000 metal bins, instead of traditional library shelves. Thus, many middle class jobs are already unavailable to humans due to the reduced costs associated with computerized services and ease of use for consumers. Many professions could become completely extinct due to technological advances and innovative approaches in the workplace.

Decline of Labor Unions

Besides the fact that the American economy is shifting overseas and some professions are going extinct due to the increased use of technology, fewer workers inside the United States are earning union salaries. Historically, labor unions were the most influential advocates for workers’ rights, and unionized workers were the backbone of the American middle class. Now, fewer jobs are unionized, prompting a large-scale decline in the influence and power of American labor unions. In 1983, one in five workers was part of a union; today this is true of only one in ten workers. Unionized workers’ median monthly salary is $10,000 more than that of their non-unionized counterparts. With the decline in labor unions, fewer American workers are earning middle class salaries. Watch the video below to learn more about labor unions and their importance for the middle class.

Increases in ‘Out-of-Pocket’ Expenses and Rising Debt

Middle class households are those families that, besides living comfortably, are able to save money. Many middle class Americans have to pay their college tuition without financial assistance, which is available to lower-income families only. Health insurance is another “out-of-pocket” expense that can be rather costly, as only those who have very low or no income are eligible for government assistance. In 2001, two thirds of American middle class families were able to accumulate savings; in 2010, less than 55 percent were saving money for retirement or their kids’ education.

A large portion of middle class income is going toward paying off student loans and maintaining medical coverage rendering it difficult to save for retirement or to buy a house. Some middle class households are deep in debt. In 1992, the median level of debt for middle class families was $32,200; by 2010 it increased 161 percent, reaching $84,000. The economic pressures that middle class households face today result in downward mobility and accumulation of debt.

Restored Payroll Tax Rate

In 2009, President Obama introduced a temporary measure to stimulate the economy by cutting the payroll tax, which finances Social Security and Medicaid by taking a percentage of income from both employees and employers. Before 2009, the payroll tax constituted 6.2 percent of income; after the changes, middle class Americans received a two-percentage-point break, resulting in a payroll tax of 4.2 percent instead. In 2013, the payroll tax cut expired and middle class households began to receive $84 less in their monthly paychecks, which is around $1,000 in yearly tax withholdings. As lower- and middle class families were the ones who enjoyed the two-percentage-point break the most, they are now the ones who are suffering the most.

Higher Food Prices

Food prices have increased globally and in the United States. On average, there’s been a 6.4 percent hike on most food products, while the price of some essentials such as meat, milk, and eggs is 16-22 percent higher than in previous years. Nevertheless, the income of middle class families is staying the same, constraining food shopping for many middle class households. The median income is increasing only one percent a year, making it difficult to keep up with rising food prices without moving down the income ladder.

Conclusion

The dynamics of the middle class in the United States are changing. Some of the above reasons for the middle class downturn are more serious than others, but all are collectively responsible for the decline in its traditional form. At the same time, technological advances in the workplace are inevitable and most likely  will continue to erase traditional service jobs and create new occupations, shifting the middle class around.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: America’s ‘Middle’ Holds Its Ground After the Great Recession

Additional

Sen. Bernie Sanders: The Middle Class in America is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

The New York Times: The Shrinking American Middle Class

CBS Evening News: Food Prices Soar as Income Stands Still

CNN Money: America’s Middle Class: Poorer Than You Think

CNN Money: America’s Disappearing Middle Class

DailyNews: Can Smart Machines Take Your Job?

Forbes: The U.S. Middle Class is Turning Proletarian

Huffington Post: Four Reasons It’s So Hard For the Middle Class to Buy a House

The New York Times: Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up

CNN Money: What Happens if the Payroll Tax Cut Expires

Pew Research Center: Are Americans Ready For Obama’s ‘Middle Class’ Populism?

PBS Frontline: The State of America’s Middle Class in Eight Charts

TIME: A Brief History of the Middle Class

USA Today: Middle Class a Matter of Income, Attitude

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Changing Dynamics of the American Middle Class appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is bigger than ever. As The New York Times reports, Amazon’s Kindle is at the top of the list for e-readers, the company launched new TV-streaming devices, and its Fire Phone was posed as a contender to the iPhone and other successful smartphones. But problems are piling up for the online retail giant. Wired Magazine declared the Fire Phone a failure and the new Fire TV Stick is backordered until January, according to CNET. Further, Amazon is in hot water with seemingly relentless criticism.

Literary agent Andrew Wylie recently denounced Amazon at a writers’ conference in Toronto, as the Guardian reports. Known to many as “the Jackal” for his business strategies, Wylie condemned Amazon’s powerful grip on distribution as being ISIS-like. A comparison of any organization to those radicals terrorizing Iraq and Syria is not an easy claim to substantiate, and hardly appropriate. Nonetheless, Wylie’s polemic rakes Amazon through the coals and foresees an end to its digital dominance. “I believe with the restored health of the publishing industry and having some sense of where this sort of ISIS-like distribution channel, Amazon, is going to be buried and in which plot of sand they will be stuck, [publishers] will be able to raise the author’s digital royalty to 40 percent or 50 percent,” Wylie said. While the Guardian writes that “Wylie said he believed Amazon’s digital monopoly could be weakened,” Amazon isn’t truly operating as a monopoly, or a seller with ultimate market power to set prices.

Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote about Amazon’s power earlier this month. The company, Krugman says, is not so much acting as a monopolist as “it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down.” Rather than sucking as much profit as possible from consumers, Amazon keeps “prices low, to reinforce its dominance. What it has done, instead, is use its market power to put a squeeze on publishers, in effect driving down the prices it pays for books.” Amazon’s dominance lies in its ability to demand extremely low prices from publishing companies so that its own resale prices are low for online shoppers.

Around the world, too, the company is facing trouble. This year, a German union has had ongoing disputes with Amazon. This shouldn’t be taken lightly, as “Amazon employs a total of 9,000 warehouse staff at nine distribution centers in Germany, its second-biggest market behind the United States, plus 14,000 seasonal workers,” Reuters reports. The union, called Verdi, is demanding greater pay for warehouse workers while the company “regards warehouse staff as logistics workers and says they receive above-average pay by the standards of that industry.” The contention of which industry the workers even belong to is central to the disputes. “The crux of the issue is whether the workers are operating in logistics or retail capacities,” according to a CNET article covering strikes. Verdi wants its workers classified in the retail and distribution sector, in which standard labor wages would be higher.

Amazon will not be able to keep up with these publicity attacks no matter the new products it releases, especially when the products’ quality is also poor. Whether criticism is coming from the polemic—if grossly hyperbolic—Wylie, the analytic Krugman, or the tenacious Verdi, Amazon needs to respond to its critics as soon as possible. Further, it needs to change its corporate structure: there need to be fairer deals with publishers and fairer negotiations with laborers. Without these concessions, Amazon will fall by the wayside; either it will succumb to competition that treats other businesses and workers more fairly, or to government intervention that forces it to behave better.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Retail Giant Amazon in Hot Water Across the Globe appeared first on Law Street.

Tenure was originally created as a protection for teachers. In more recent times however, critics have grown concerned that it has turned into a system that has the potential for abuse. Read on to learn about the history of tenure and the arguments for and against it.

The History of Tenure

The early twentieth century saw an immense number of unions formed in a wide array of industries, empowering the American workers and dramatically altering legal precedent concerning workers’ rights. During this time, American public school districts began adapting and adopting the process of tenure from colleges and universities and applying it to their own school systems. Tenure, in the K-12 public school sense, provides teachers with the right to due process before being terminated. Before tenure became a common aspect of public school districts, female teachers were often dismissed for getting pregnant or even being seen in town with a man to whom she was not married to; and older teachers were often replaced with new, younger teachers simply because they had become too expensive for the district.

As educational professionals seek ways to improve the American education system in the wake of No Child Left Behind’s rigorous standards, many argue that replacing teacher tenure with a merit-based system would improve teacher quality and, therefore, student performance. However, advocates of teacher tenure argue that is protects vital rights that, if removed, would allow teachers to be exploited and would constrict their ability to improve their educational strategies.

What are the arguments for teachers being able to receive tenure?

Advocates argue that the tenure system protects teachers from being wrongfully dismissed because of problems that could arise out of industry politics, economics, and other such dynamics, as well as personal or political reasons, such as disagreeing with the school board over whether to teach a topic such as evolution or to teach a banned book. Advocates argue that this allows teachers to take more risks in their teaching style and methods, encouraging teachers to push the pedagogical boundaries and improve themselves as educational professionals in the process. A distinction that many advocates of teacher tenure make is that it does not make it impossible to fire a tenured teacher. Instead, tenure ensures due process is followed when a district seeks to dismiss a teacher.

Tenure is not merely given to any teacher hired by a district; most school districts require teachers to spend three to four years in a probationary period before receiving tenure, which allows the teacher to gain experience and allows the district to determine whether the teacher will continue to be a valuable addition to the school’s faculty.

Many teachers also face the prospect of termination due to false student accusations. At times a student may falsely accuse his or her teacher of committing a fireable offense, which often gains a large amount of negative publicity for the school district and could potentially blacklist a teacher from getting a job elsewhere. Tenure ensures that a thorough investigation is conducted before the administration acts upon a student’s accusation, thus protecting good teachers from malcontented students.

What are the arguments against teacher tenure?

Opponents of the tenure system argue that it is being manipulated by teachers’ unions to make ineffective teachers difficult to dismiss and creates a system that favors seniority over merit. Opponents argue that while teachers must work through a probationary period before receiving tenure, nearly all teachers receive it once they reach that mark, and therefore tenure becomes a process not aimed at protecting and retaining good teachers, but at protecting the job security of all teachers regardless of merit. In the New York City public school district, 97 percent of teachers received tenure after teaching for three years, and opponents argue that statistics such as these indicate that tenure is not a highly selective process.

Tenure also makes teachers difficult to fire by allowing teachers’ unions to drag out the termination process and to dispute any decisions concerning dismissal, making the removal of poor teachers expensive and time consuming. A study published in 2009 stated that 89 percent of administrators did not fire ineffective teachers for fear of the time and money it would require to do so. Additionally, in the Chicago public school district, where only 28.5 percent of student met expectations on standardized tests, only 0.1 percent of teachers were dismissed for performance-related reasons between 2005 and 2008. Obviously, there is a disconnect between the poor performance of students in this district and the replacement of teachers who were unable to improve that performance.

Many opponents also argue that tenure allows teachers to stop seeking personal improvement and to begin to “coast” through their jobs. In a profession that demands constant improvement while children’s education hangs in the balance, a system that provides teachers with impeccable job security unrelated to merit is not the way to promote teacher development.

Conclusion

The history of granting teachers tenure makes sense, but whether or not the system has reached antiquity is a common topic of debate. Tenure has many benefits — protection and incentives for teachers — but also some downsides — potential to kill innovation. As the American education system evolves and begins to adopt more alternative forms of teaching, such as charter schools, tenure policies may have to evolve too to keep up.

Resources

Primary

University of Minnesota: A Study of Transparency of K-12 Teacher Tenure: What the Evaluation Policy Documents Reveal

Additional

Huffington Post: An Argument For Teacher Tenure

NEA Today: What Teacher Tenure Is and What it Is Not

Teach For America: Point/ Counterpoint: In Support of Teacher Tenure

News Observer: Wake County School Board Opposes Elimination of Teacher Tenure

Teachers Union Exposed: Protecting Bad Teachers

NPR: Is Teacher Tenure Still Necessary?

USA Today: States Weaken Tenure Rights For Teachers

Scholastic: Weigh In: Is Tenure For Teachers Over?

Education.com: Should Teachers Have Tenure?

Concordia Online Education: K-12 Teacher Tenure: Understanding the Debate

Teachhub.com: Teacher Tenure Debate: Pros and Cons

Take Part: Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure: What You Didn’t Know

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teachers and Tenure: An Outdated System? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, I have noticed with the talk of 2014 midterm elections, articles about minimum wage are starting to pop up more in my daily reading. The problem with these articles (one, two, and three) is no one completely gets the argument right. The problem is not that that the wealthy made more money, but that the rate at which they are making more money is increasing more quickly compared to other groups. Between 1979-2007, the ‘99%’ saw a 53% change in comprehensive income, while the top ‘1%’ had a 314% increase. The concern surrounding this trend has given rise to the hot political debate of a suggested federal minimum wage increase to $10.10. But, as we continue to discuss the validity of minimum wage legislation, we need to be clear on its effectiveness, purpose, and discuss more powerful alternatives like unionization and collective bargaining.

Why Conservatives Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

There is a very popular myth among conservatives that the minimum wage always hurts job growth and in fact leads to a decrease in available jobs. We need to realize that this not always the case, and in fact, significant amount of data suggests that increasing the minimum wage is a very practical thing to do because it provides needed benefits to workers with zero impact on employment levels. According to Madland and Bunker at the Center for American Progress, “at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage… find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels.” People often forget that an increase in the minimum wage does have benefits, and it seems these benefits prove to be very effective and helpful during times of high unemployment. A minimum wage increase results in ‘boosts in demand and reduction in turnover’.

Contrary to conservative doctrine, it is actually the consumer that keeps the economy going. This is for two reasons. First, when more people are buying products the economy grows faster. Second, people with less money, spend more money. Director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf notes that “increases in disposable income are likely to boost purchases more for lower-income than for higher-income households,” thus a minimum wage increase provides more money for these families and that results in more spending which boosts demand.

Turnover refers to the process of workers quitting and companies having to re-hire and re-train new employees, thus high levels of turnover create a very inefficient system. Some companies, such as Costco, have implemented ‘efficiency wages’ to avoid high turn-over among workers. Costco pays its employees $15.60 per hour, which is significantly over the minimum wage. Their philosophy is that a higher wage will yield more productivity with less turnover and retention of good workers. This model has been extremely successful. Consider their numbers in comparison to Wal-Mart, which pursues the path of cheap labor.

Why Liberals Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

What we need to understand is that liberals have two goals in mind with the minimum wage. The first is to create a level of income that constitutes a living wage. The second, and more philosophical reason, has to do with establishing a sense of equity in society. The United States is currently the third most unequal society among OECD nations. We have extremely low social and economic mobility, which means that the likelihood of someone moving from a low-income status to the middle class or from the middle class to a high-income status is extremely unlikely. I suggest that the protection and promotion of unions would be a more efficient policy for achieving both of the liberal’s goals — helping workers obtain a living wage and instilling equity in our society.

Unions and Living Wages

We find that unions, like the minimum wage, are effective in helping ensure workers are making a living wage. Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters of the Economic Policy Institute, complete a thorough analysis of data sets, and conclude that “unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20%.” However, one of the advantages of unions over the minimum wage, is that unions do more than just help provide workers with better compensation. Unionized workers are much more likely to receive benefits that many would consider fundamental to a stable economic status. Mishel and Walters also point out that

Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

These benefits are not included in a minimum wage increase, yet they are extremely important to helping people stay at the ‘living wage’ threshold. It used to be the case that a majority firms offered employer-based health insurance. However, over the last thirty years, the number of firms offering this benefit has been on the decline along with the presence of unions in the labor market. Since it was the strong unionized labor force the procured benefits like employer-provided health insurance in the first place, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as unions have decreased so have worker benefits.

Unions and Equity

 Liberals support minimum wage legislation also to establish a sense of equity in society. This goal will not be achieved through a minimum wage increase, and in fact, supporting an increase may be further perpetuating a system of inequality. In Why Nations Fail, M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson provide an account of what factors contribute to the constitution of a successful and flourishing nation. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does a nice job of summarizing the main thesis of the book, “nations thrive when they develop ‘inclusive’ political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become ‘extractive’ and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few. The important thing is that you need to have both a politically and economically inclusive system, because they depend on each other. Without one, you will lose the other, and that in turn creates a downward spiral into collapse and failure.

What does this have to do with Unions? My contention is this: the best way to ensure that the people experience political and economic inclusivity is through the presence of unions and collective bargaining in the work force.

We have already seen that unions are effective at improving the economic well-being of its members. However, members of society still need political inclusivity. Interestingly, in their conclusion, Mishel and Walters make an important observation, namely that, “unions enable due process in the workplace and facilitate a strong worker voice in the broader community and in politics.” Unlike an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in unionization can help citizens improve their political standing along with their economic position.

Citizen’s United

It is quite clear that we have become a very economic exclusive society with extreme income inequality, relatively high-poverty, and an low social mobility.

When it comes to the status of political inclusivity, things are a little more gray. It would seem that the US must be politically inclusive because it is a democratic-republic and everybody has the right to vote for elected leaders. However, the rise of big-money in politics has greatly changed the political landscape. In the current system corporations have the right to spend money on political campaigns, so companies like Bank of America and Goldman Sach’s donating over a million dollars to political campaigns through Super PACs. These extremely large donations allow significant access to the candidate, and a platform to communicate what they would like to see from their candidate while in office.

Low income and middle class citizens are losing political power, because their one vote is not as valuable as a million dollars in campaign financing, and unfortunately, it seems there is no solution to this problem except for reversing Citizen’s United, which is not a promising outlook.

If this problem cannot be fixed directly through the political sector, maybe it can be solved through unionization. Collective bargaining is a form of political power. Unions have a history of being key players in political movements such as the struggle for civil rights, the fight for Fair Employment Practices Commission, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, etc.

If conservatives and liberals really are interested into making the United States a thriving democracy, we really need to rethink our attitude towards Unions. They may be our best option for preserving and restoring economic and political inclusion which are fundamental components of a successful society.

[EPI] [NY Times] [OpenSecrets] [CBPP] [EPI – Mishel]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/401(K) 2012]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Conservatives & Liberals Are Both Wrong About Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

“School’s done for me — I’m here to concentrate on football.”

Matt Leinart declared these words in August 2005 on the eve of his final season as quarterback for the University of Southern California’s football team.  The quote was part of an Associated Press article on Matt Leinart’s class schedule for the upcoming fall — a schedule which consisted solely of ballroom dancing. The one-page piece, picked up by ESPN, might have unfairly portrayed student-athletes as having cupcake course loads. But it also confirmed what everyone outside of the NCAA front office already knew: NCAA football players are treated as football players first, and students second.

More than two thousand miles away in Chicago, Ill., Northwestern University football players have taken formal steps to recognize this fact by having a petition filled on their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In other words, college football players are trying to unionize.  If successful, the first ever college players union would be called the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), and would focus on scholarships, transfer rules, and increasing player safety rather than require that players receive specific compensation (find out more here).

Before CAPA becomes an official union of college athletes, NCAA athletes may have to convince the NLRB they qualify as “employees” under Federal law.  At first glance, precedent would appear to favor the NCAA on this issue.  In 2004, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) found that Brown University graduate teaching assistants were not employees, and therefore not capable of forming a protected union.  Important to the Board’s decision however were the findings that:

1. The role of the graduate assistant was integral to the education of the graduate student; and,
2. The relationship between the graduate assistant and Brown was primarily educational.

The NCAA is likely to recycle the same argument against college athletes, but it’s not likely to go as well. Is the role of the football player integral to the education of the football player? Doubtful. When the NLRB decided this issue in the Brown case they relied largely on the fact that graduate assistants “must first be enrolled at Brown to receive a TA, RA, or proctorship.” Meanwhile, most college football players are recruited as minors and offered athletic scholarships prior to high school graduation. Those athletes most similar to the example of an RA or TA in the case of college football would be walk-ons, and well, not all athletes are Rudy Ruettigers.

Is the relationship between the football player and their college primarily educational? Please.  A 2008 NCAA survey among college football players indicated they spent an average of 45 hours per week on their sport. Doesn’t seem to leave a ton of room for studying, does it?  Oh and let us not forget about the bags of money that are thrown around. Although maybe colleges make hundreds of millions from Gabriel the economics TA? Who knows!

Whatever the outcome may be regarding college football players’ right to unionize and their status as employees, we may not know the answer for years.  But clearly, the NCAA is going to have difficulty dancing around the issue.

—

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 [David X. O’Neil via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Football Local 60208? Why College Athletes May Win Their Fight to Unionize appeared first on Law Street.