Monthly Archive for January, 2012

New Study Documents Troubling Trends in Retail Industry

Published on January 24, 2012 in Vicki Shabo and Work & Family. 0 Comments

Vicki Shabo, Director of Work and Family Programs

Retail is the nation’s second-largest sector and one of the fastest-growing industries in the country. We all depend on it – and on the retail workers that help us every day by ringing up our purchases, stocking store shelves and greeting us as we enter our favorite stores. It also plays an important role in our economy. Yet, according to a new study from the Retail Action Project and City University of New York’s Murphy Institute, workers in the retail industry too often face poverty wages, few benefits and unpredictable schedules – with significant disparities by gender and race.

The study, Discounted Jobs: How Retailers Sell Workers Short, is the result of a direct survey of frontline retail workers. It looks at responses from hundreds of non-union workers in New York City who work at large retail stories and national chains, ranging from high-end fashion to off-brand clothing retailers.

According to the study, average wages among retail workers are 52 percent lower than the citywide average in New York – and there are significant gaps for women and workers of color. The median wage among hourly workers is $9.50. For women, it’s only $9.00, compared to $10.13 for men. And for African Americans and Latinos, the median wage is $10.00 and $9.00, respectively, compared to $10.50 for whites.

Low wages can have a significant impact on the economic security and well-being of these workers and their families, especially when nearly 60 percent of retail workers are not full time and half say they need more hours. Just as threatening is a widespread failure to provide basic workplace protections like paid sick days, paid time off and access to health insurance.

The study found that only 44 percent of retail workers have paid sick days – and only about half of those workers have ever used a paid sick day for fear of employer retaliation or job loss. Just 46 percent have any paid time off. And 71 percent don’t receive health insurance through their retail job. In general, the study found that full-time workers are more likely to have access to these policies but, again, women and workers of color are less likely to be hired full time.

Scheduling is yet another challenge for these workers as they try to be loyal, available employees while caring for their children and families. Only 17 percent have a set schedule. More than half know their schedules only a week in advance. More than 40 percent must be on call, and almost half say their schedules change without their consent. Here, too, the problem is worse for workers of color. Unpredictable, erratic schedules often affect workers’ child care obligations, pursuit of education, ability to make medical appointments and more.

These findings are beyond troubling for working families and for our economy. As the report concludes, “The retail workforce is at a crossroads that mirrors the broader trends in the national economy… Implementing straightforward and sensible policies, such as a living wage and paid sick days legislation, would create a baseline for dignified work.”

At the National Partnership, we couldn’t agree more. These policies are common-sense prescriptions for retail workers – and all workers who struggle to provide for their families with low wages and few benefits. That’s why federal paid sick days and paid leave standards, fair pay and workplace flexibility are so important. We hope this report will be a wake-up call for all employers and legislators who need to make these policies a priority.

 

After 39 Years, Let’s End the War on Women

Published on January 22, 2012 in Debra Ness, Repro Health Watch and Reproductive Health. 8 Comments Tags: .

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

It’s been 39 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade – but the battles over access to the full range of reproductive health care services still rage on.

In 2011, the number of abortion restrictions introduced in state legislatures reached a three-decade high. But such laws – like the ultrasound law in Texas, which requires providers to perform ultrasounds, describe the fetus and give women the option to hear the fetal heartbeat – aren’t just problematic in that they put barriers between women and their health care.  They are affirmatively bad for women’s health. They require unnecessary and invasive procedures not recommended by doctors. This is especially problematic when women are directed or tricked into seeking care at crisis pregnancy centers – which often have no qualified medical professionals on staff.

Women deserve sound medical advice from actual medical professionals.

The Texas sonogram law is just one example of the attacks on women’s reproductive health over the past year. They have been far-reaching and dangerous – and anti-choice extremists show no signs of letting up.

Not only is access to abortion services out of reach for many women, but so is birth control, maternity care, and social services to help them raise healthy families. It’s time to recommit to protecting and expanding common sense policies that improve women’s health by providing access to affordable, high quality reproductive health services. The National Partnership has joined the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign virtual march to make sure our elected officials know that restricting women’s health services is unacceptable. Join us!

New Study Makes a Strong Case for a National Paid Leave Policy

Published on January 19, 2012 in Vicki Shabo and Work & Family. 2 Comments

Vicki Shabo, Director of Work and Family Programs

At a time when working families are struggling, the economy is in trouble, and the need for family friendly workplace policies is high, a groundbreaking new study demonstrates that paid leave is good for working families, businesses and our economy. Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public makes a strong case for the national paid leave standard the country needs.

This new study was conducted by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and commissioned by the National Partnership with generous support from the Rockefeller Foundation. The study looks at how access to paid leave affects workers’ labor force participation, wages and reliance on public assistance. And the findings are striking, particularly for women.

According to the new study, after a child’s birth, women who take paid leave are more likely than those who take no leave to be working nine to 12 months after the child’s birth. And those women who take paid leave for 30 days or longer are more likely to see wage increases in the year after a child’s birth. Mothers’ increased attachment to the workforce and rise in income can have a lasting effect on their families’ financial health, especially in the nearly two-thirds of U.S. households where women are their families’ sole or co-breadwinners.

Additionally, and particularly important during tough economic times, the study reveals that, with controls for other relevant factors, both women and men who take paid leave are significantly less likely to rely on public assistance or food stamps after a child’s birth. At a time when governments are struggling with deficits and working families are struggling to stay afloat, this is an incredibly important finding. It shows that giving workers’ access to paid leave can save precious government and taxpayer resources while giving families the stability they desperately need.

Pay Matters makes clear that access to leave is important for working families, businesses and the public – and that the difference between paid and unpaid leave is significant. Sadly, only about one in 10 workers in the United States has access to paid family leave through their employer, and fewer than two in five have access to personal medical leave through employer-provided short-term disability insurance. A handful of states – California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island – provide for personal medical leave with some wage replacement. And only California and New Jersey have implemented paid family leave programs.

What these states have done is an important first step, but the vast majority of workers are still struggling without any paid leave. These are new mothers and fathers who can’t bond with their new children, adult children who can’t assist their ill elderly parents, pregnant women who lose their life savings when they are put on bed rest, and more.

As the report recommends, it’s time for a national standard – not a patchwork of policies. That’s why we are so pleased that members of Congress are working on a proposal that would guarantee paid leave on the national level. It’s badly needed, it’s sound policy and it’s cost-efficient. It’s also the right thing to do for working families, for businesses and for our economy.

We hope and expect that this study, and those that follow, will make the case for a national paid leave policy clear to all legislators. There couldn’t be a better time to make it a priority.

Read the full report here.

Defending Progress on Health Care

Published on January 17, 2012 in Health Care, Judges & Supreme Court and Kirsten Sloan. 8 Comments

Kirsten Sloan, Vice President

In March, the United States Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – the health reform law enacted in 2010.  Attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses are challenging the new law.

The National Partnership for Women & Families has joined the National Women’s Law Center and other women’s groups in filing an amicus brief supporting the ACA. 

For decades women in the U.S. have been struggling to find and keep affordable health coverage as insurance companies raised premiums based on gender, age or health status, denied coverage for essential health services or dropped coverage altogether when enrollees got sick.

The ACA is progressively putting a stop to those outrageous practices between 2010 and 2014 — and it’s already beginning to deliver for women and their families.  We no longer face deductibles or co-pays to get essential preventive services like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings.  We are now able to keep our children on our health insurance policies until age 26.  Plus, health plans can no longer rescind our coverage or hit us with lifetime caps or low annual limits on coverage just when we need coverage the most.

And more improvements are right around the corner – like, at long last, the elimination of ratings based on gender and health status, and exclusions for pre-existing conditions in insurance policies.

These are changes worth fighting for and the National Partnership for Women & Families will be there every step of the way.  We simply cannot let opponents convince the Court to undo the progress that we have made.  We owe it to our families.  We owe it to ourselves.

At Stake: A Fundamental Protection for Millions of Workers

Published on January 12, 2012 in Debra Ness and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post.

It may be the single most important law ever passed to address the needs of workers trying to meet their work and family responsibilities. And this week, in the midst of an economic downturn that has made job protection especially critical, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could undermine one of its core provisions. The justices’ decision will determine whether millions of state government workers will have the fundamental right to take job-protected, unpaid leave when they are seriously ill.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) became law nearly 20 years ago. It was designed to help address the rampant discrimination women faced in the workplace due to their caregiving responsibilities and their ability to get pregnant. We at the National Partnership know this well. We drafted and led the fight to pass the critical legislation.

By ensuring that all eligible workers in the public and private sectors could take job-protected, unpaid time off to recover from their own serious medical conditions and those of their families, the FMLA has made a huge difference in the lives of millions of workers. It has allowed them to keep their families safe and healthy without sacrificing their livelihoods and economic security.

New mothers and fathers have been able to take time to bond with their newborns or newly adopted children. Adult children have been able to help their elderly parents recover from serious medical conditions or treatments. Women with complicated pregnancies have been able to stay home to improve their health and the health of their babies. And men who have gotten seriously ill or injured have been able to take time to recover. Since its passage, the law has been used more than 100 million times in situations like these.

So when Maryland state worker Daniel Coleman requested time off under the FMLA to recover from a serious health condition, he didn’t expect a problem. After all, his doctor had prescribed two weeks of bed rest.

He didn’t expect to be fired the next day.

And he didn’t expect that this simple request would flip his life upside down.

Sadly, that’s exactly what happened.

In the nearly seven months of unemployment that followed, Coleman struggled to provide for his family, including his two college-aged sons. He exhausted his 401k.

Knowing his rights had been violated, and appalled that other state workers may have suffered the same injustice, Coleman decided to challenge the state of Maryland. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if the state can be held accountable for its unlawful actions – and whether all state workers are protected by the self-care provision of the FMLA.

The questions before the Supreme Court have to do with Congress’ intent. Did lawmakers intend to remedy sex discrimination by enacting the FMLA? And did they intend for state workers to be covered by the law?

The answer to both is unquestionably “yes” — and that is why it is imperative that the Court vindicate the rights of Daniel Coleman and, in doing so, uphold state workers’ rights to self-care leave under the FMLA.

In 1993, the Court considered this very question as it related to the FMLA’s family-care provision. In Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, in a ruling penned by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court rightfully found that Congress intended to grant state workers family-care leave under the FMLA. The Court should rule the same way about self-care in this case.

The National Partnership led a coalition of 10 top civil and workers’ rights organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court brief that makes this very argument. We urge the Court to uphold self-care rights for state workers based on congressional intent.

What is at stake in this case is whether the Supreme Court will respect Congress’ ability to make laws designed to remedy pervasive and unconstitutional discrimination, and whether millions of state workers can continue to count on FMLA leave when they get sick. Only one ruling is acceptable: that the state of Maryland be held accountable for firing a hardworking employee who simply asked for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to recover from a serious medical condition.

For more information on Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, visit www.NationalPartnership.org/Coleman.

Supreme Court to Decide State Workers’ Rights Under FMLA

Published on January 11, 2012 in Judges & Supreme Court, Sarah Crawford, Work & Family and Workplace Fairness. 0 Comments

Director of Workplace Fairness

Cross-posted from the American Constitution Society.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals – a case that could erode the right of millions of state workers to take job-protected, unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when faced with a serious illness.

The FMLA set an important family and medical leave standard that guarantees eligible workers – both women and men – up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave to recover from a serious illness or medical condition, including pregnancy or childbirth, or to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or a seriously ill family member. The FMLA offered leave on a gender-neutral basis rather than creating a special right to self-care leave for medical illness surrounding pregnancy, in part to avoid creating perverse incentives for further discrimination against women.

Since its enactment 18 years ago, workers have used the FMLA more than 100 million times. The law has helped workers disabled by pregnancy or recovering from childbirth, workers with new babies and dying parents, workers who have had heart attacks and hysterectomies – in short, workers for whom job-protected leave is of critical importance. An adverse decision from the Supreme Court could put access to FMLA self-care leave at risk for millions of state workers. At stake is their fundamental right to take time off to address their own serious medical needs, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Petitioner Daniel Coleman was working for a Maryland court when his doctor ordered bed rest due to serious illness. Within hours of requesting medical leave, Coleman was fired. He then filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the FMLA. Contrary to the plain language of the statute, the lower courts ruled that the state of Maryland could not be sued for monetary damages under the FMLA’s self-care provision.

The Supreme Court is now poised to decide whether Congress validly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by acting to address unconstitutional discrimination.

In point of fact, when the legislation was being considered, Congress collected an enormous amount of evidence demonstrating clearly that outdated workplace policies and practices denied women equal employment opportunity, including discriminatory policies and practices by state governments. Congress found that women continued to face persistent sex discrimination relating to pregnancy and childbirth. Thus, Congress enacted the FMLA pursuant to its power to address unconstitutional discrimination under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Joined by a broad coalition of civil rights groups, workers’ rights groups, and labor organizations, the National Partnership for Women & Families filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold the plain language of the FMLA, which established critical leave rights for state workers. Like private employers, states must be held accountable when they violate their employees’ rights to self-care leave.

Notably, the Supreme Court already has established that state workers can sue their employers for monetary damages for violations of the family-care provision of the FMLA. In the 2003 case of Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court ruled that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment authority with respect to the FMLA’s family-care provision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that Congress clearly intended to protect state workers from sex discrimination by providing job-protected leave to care for a family member. Indeed, the Court got it right in the Hibbs case, and the same analysis applies under the self-care provision at issue in the Coleman case.

The millions of state workers who are struggling with their own medical illness or who may face a serious illness in the future have to fervently hope that the Court gets it right again. Those workers have a tremendous amount at stake in this case.

Toward a More Family Friendly Nation

Published on January 4, 2012 in Debra Ness and Work & Family. 1 Comment

Debra Ness, President, National Partnership

It’s not literally the 99 percent versus the privileged few, but it’s one of the most noteworthy divides I have seen.

Most of us who earn paid sick time cannot imagine that any workers in this country do not.

[Cross-posted from The Huffington Post]

And tens of millions of workers who toil for years — caring for kids, the elderly or the infirm; cooking food or delivering it to our tables; cleaning cars, homes or streets; guarding our factories and office buildings — cannot imagine being able to stay home with strep or stomach flu, or to care for a sick child, without losing a day’s pay or possibly their job.

Yet in terms of economic security, a chasm divides those two Americas.

One is filled with people with some measure of job and economic security and usually health insurance of some kind. The other is filled with people who find the deck stacked against them every time illness strikes or health needs arise.

That is why Sunday, January 1, 2012, was such an important day. It marked not only the beginning of a new year but, let’s hope, a new era when paid sick days will become the norm for all workers in this country.

For sure we will see progress in Connecticut, because lawmakers there listened to their constituents instead of the business lobby and enacted a law guaranteeing many workers the right to earn paid sick time. It is the country’s first statewide paid sick days measure, and it took effect on Sunday. Seattle also passed a paid sick days law this year, the nation’s third city to put such a standard in place.

January 1, 2012, is the day when hundreds of thousands of workers in Connecticut finally gained the right to earn job-protected paid sick days. It’s a huge step, and long overdue. The new law will help those workers, their families, the public’s health and the state. But perhaps even more important, Connecticut’s experience will add to the growing body of evidence that paid sick days are good for businesses and economies as well. Studies show that San Francisco’s law, the nation’s first, is working well for businesses as well as workers.

But as 2012 begins, more than 40 million workers in the United States cannot earn a single paid sick day. Low-wage, women and Latino workers are disproportionately affected.

Several cities and states are considering paid sick days measures, but the battle against a relentless, well-funded business lobby is tough everywhere.

So let’s keep our eyes on Connecticut, where a recent poll by Hart Research Associates found that voters look favorably on lawmakers who supported the new law. An overwhelming majority identify paid sick days as central to families’ economic security. They are poised to reward legislators who voted for the law, the poll found.

Let’s tip our hats to Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy and to all the lawmakers there and in Seattle who, in 2011, said “no” to the business lobby and “yes” to refusing to force hardworking families to make impossible choices when illness strikes.

Let’s all pay attention to this issue in 2012, an election year when we take measure of our status, refine our values, and decide the kind of country we want to be.

If we do that, we can make this year’s victories a real turning point, rather than an anomaly at this time when workers seem to lose more often than they win.

By making paid sick time a priority for all workers, we can close one painful divide and give all hardworking people the chance to earn a few days off to recover when illness strikes or a family member needs care. It’s time.