Monday, April 13, 2015
Time is Money: Reporting Time Rules in California
Reporting time pay is one of the provisions of California wage and hour law that is often overlooked by employers. The requirement to pay reporting time is set forth in Section 5 of all but one of the 17 Wage Orders, and it guarantees workers that they will be paid for at least half of their scheduled shift in the event they are sent home early. It also provides for a minimum of two hours of pay for employees who are required to report to work for a second time in one workday. The purpose of the provision is to discourage employers from deliberately over-staffing and then sending home excess workers without any pay. Yet, many employers are unaware of these rules!
For more information, go to
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_reportingtimepay.htm
Sunday, April 12, 2015
ALJ Decides Unlawful Termination Case in EF International Hearing
ALJ Decides Unlawful Termination Case in EF International Hearing Testimony via International Video Conferencing San Francisco, CA – The General Counsel brought a complaint against EF International Language Schools, Inc. (EF), alleging that EF terminated the Charging Party because of her protected, concerted activities, and threatened her with unspecified reprisals if she continued to engage in such actions that included her speaking out about teachers’ terms and conditions of employment at meetings and in group emails. During the trial, the NLRB for the first time in the Agency’s history conducted a trial examination of a witness via international video conferencing. The administrative law judge found that EF violated the NLRA and ordered that it cease and desist from threatening or discharging employees for their protected, concerted activities. The administrative law judge also ordered that EF offer full reinstatement to the Charging Party and make her whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of her unlawful termination. Finally, the administrative law judge determined that the witness’s testimony obtained via international video conferencing could be evaluated on an equal footing with the testimony of witnesses appearing in person at the hearing. This case was investigated and tried by Region 20 Field Attorney Jason Wong.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Private Sector Gets OK to Unionize
Saturday, 28 February 2015 12:40
A new Labor Board ruling could finally unstick the unionization of professors in the private sector—a project that's been stalled for 35 years.
"People for years have talked about when Obama's NLRB finally gets stabilized and takes on the three big higher-ed issues," says longtime contingent faculty activist Joe Berry. "And finally we've got a decision on two of them."
About 1 in 3 higher-education instructors works at a private college or university. But unionization efforts there virtually halted after a 1980 ruling that, because of their role in campus governance, full-time faculty counted as managers.
If the reasoning in NLRB vs. Yeshiva seemed far-fetched then, it's become even farther-fetched in the 35 years since—something the board acknowledged in its precedent-setting December ruling. It upheld union rights for the faculty at Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) in Tacoma, Washington, who've been organizing with Service Employees (SEIU) Local 925.
The decision notes the creeping "corporatization" that's encroached on university decision-making. It observes that "colleges and universities are increasingly run by administrators, which has the effect of concentrating and centering authority away from the faculty."
And it sets out new criteria for deciding when full-time faculty will be eligible for the board's recognition, based on whether the administration really follows faculty recommendations on academics, enrollment, and finances.
"We think this means universities are going to have a very difficult time establishing that any faculty members have managerial authority under this framework," said SEIU lawyer Paul Drachler. "With respect to contingent faculty, it wasn't even a close question in this case."
The ruling also boosts faculty unionizing at religiously affiliated schools. The third issue still outstanding is union recognition for private sector graduate students.
All Together Now?
Faculty unionization boomed in the 1970s. But after Yeshiva, some administrations refused to renew contracts. Other bargaining units hung on, but lived under the threat that at any moment their administrations might ask the NLRB to review their certifications.
Private sector faculty union drives mostly ground to a halt. The big exception has been the recent spate of part-time adjunct organizing, most prominently by SEIU. Adjuncts are often hired to teach one course at a time, and bounce between campuses to patch together a meager living—they could hardly be ruled managers.
To be clear: the Labor Board can't ban anyone from collective bargaining. But if you're in its jurisdiction, once you've demonstrated majority support to the NLRB's satisfaction, your employer is legally obliged to come to the bargaining table. If the NLRB doesn't cover you—this is true of farmworkers and domestic workers, too—you have to find other ways to push the employer to bargain, such as strikes or public pressure.
Public sector faculty, meanwhile, aren't governed by the NLRB, but by state boards. Their organizing rights vary according to state laws. Some have organized all faculty, from tenured to adjuncts.
A recent example is the University of Oregon, where faculty recently won a first contract as a single bargaining unit, affiliated with both the Teachers (AFT) and the University Professors (AAUP). The contract included significant raises for everyone, and also boosted hundreds of adjuncts into permanent jobs.
The PLU ruling opens the door for private sector faculty to adopt a similar approach. "Our strategy is to look at faculty work, and not so much who's doing the work," said AAUP Executive Director Julie Schmid. "We believe the people doing the work of the faculty should be organized together, whether adjunct, tenure-track, or full-time, non-tenure track."
AAUP's 79 bargaining units are mostly on public campuses. The rest of its 152 U.S. chapters are known as "advocacy chapters," acting as professional organizations rather than unions. The ruling could clear the way for advocacy chapters on private campuses to move toward collective bargaining status, if they wish.
In the currently popular "metro strategy," adjuncts organize simultaneously on campuses in the same city. It's gotten farthest in the Washington, D.C., area, where SEIU Local 500 has unionized five out of seven campuses, representing 70 to 80 percent of adjuncts. Now they could reach out to full-timers at the same institutions.
"What we're really facing is this seemingly endless stratification," said Anne McLeer, a former adjunct now in charge of Local 500's higher ed campaigns. Three-quarters of faculty were on the tenure track in 1970, she said. Since then, full-time jobs have splintered into numerous layers, many of them contingent.
"One of the big goals is to deconstruct this multi-tiered system," McLeer says. "Not that it's going to be 100 percent tenure-track positions, but at least a return to a situation where there's more equity in the job market." The new ruling could help.
Window of Opportunity
Though the PLU ruling comes from the Labor Board's top body, it's not the last word on private sector faculty status or religious exemptions. PLU is expected to appeal. The case could reach the Supreme Court.
But it does create a window of opportunity that unions should seize for organizing now, says Berry. "The worst mistake people could make would be to wait two years to see what the Supreme Court decides," he said. "That would be tragic."
He compares this moment to the period right after a national labor law first passed in the '30s. As Berry tells it, organizers "went out and said, 'The President wants you to join the union,' and they rebuilt the Mineworkers union, which had almost died, and which then became the chief funder of the CIO."
Though the Supreme Court threw out the law a few years later, Berry said, by then it was too late to stop the momentum of organizing already underway. The president, Congress, and the court were forced to accept another labor law—establishing the NLRB.
PLU's votes were finally counted in January, but the outcome is too close to call. Thirty-eight of 122 ballots were challenged by either the employer or the union, so it's back to the NLRB for months' more haggling.
But like the Duquesne adjuncts, PLU faculty haven't waited for the government's approval. They're campaigning for equitable raises—acting like a union.
CORRECTIONS: The photo credit has been corrected. Also, the original version of this article erroneously identified Pacific Lutheran University as in Seattle; it is in Tacoma.
New book from Labor Notes: How to Jump-Start Your Union: Lessons from the Chicago Teachers tells how activists transformed their union and gave members hope. "A beacon to all rank-and-file members on how to bring democracy to their locals." Buy one today, only $15.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Right Wing Declares 'Guerrilla War' on NLRB, Again
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/232917-right-wing-declares-guerrilla-war-on-nlrb-again
February 17, 2015
By John A. Logan, contributor
February 17, 2015
By John A. Logan, contributor
Last month, Randy Johnson, vice president of the nation's most powerful lobbying organization, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated that his organization would engage in "guerrilla warfare" against the NLRB. While a startling admission, Johnson's comments provide an accurate description of the behavior of big business and Republican lawmakers toward the NLRB during the Obama administration.
The right wing is apoplectic because the NLRB dared issue a new rule intended to modernize the union certification process and eliminate the worst cases of pre-election delay. The modest changes under the rule would not radically alter the balance of power in NLRB elections. But big business is determined that it will not stand. Johnson stated: "It really amounts to guerilla warfare where you've got a variety of weapons at your disposal." Thus, the chamber will employ an array of obstructionist tactics to sabotage the election rule. Johnson outlined "various devices to rein them in ... litigation, oversight hearings and appropriations riders." True to his words, big business filed two legal challenges to the election rule, which is due to take effect on April 14, in early January. The chamber has asked the courts to grant summary judgment blocking the implementation of the election rule.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Elizabeth Warren Explains How Anti-Obamacare Bill Is Corporate Welfare
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/elizabeth-warren-obamacar_n_6524736.html
Posted: 01/22/2015
-
Posted: 01/22/2015
-
A bill (ironically called Save American Workers Act of 2015 - H.R.30) that would redefine a full-time work week under the Affordable Care Act as 40 hours instead of 30 actually amounts to a break for corporations, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued in a hearing Thursday.
Under the legislation, businesses would be obligated to provide health care only to employees who work 40 hours a week or more, rather than 30. Republicans and some Democrats have backed the bill, saying the current 30-hour standard offers an incentive to cut workers' hours to get around Obamacare's requirement that full-time employees receive insurance.
And a Congressional Budget Office report released earlier this month found that if the standard were shifted from 30 hours a week to 40, many more workers would be at risk of having their hours cut. This is because a much larger portion of the workforce -- about half -- works around 40 hours per week. By contrast, fewer than one in 10 employees work around 30 hours per week.
According to the CBO, the proposed legislation would increase the incentive to cut workers' hours from 40 a week to just below. As a result, up to 1 million workers could lose their employer-backed insurance -- and many of those people would need to shift to tax-subsidized Obamacare. All told, the move would add $53.8 billion to the deficit, CBO said.
Warren said that the bill effectively shifts the burden away from companies and onto taxpayers.
"This bill is corporate welfare," Warren said at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. "Big corporations would get to cut health benefits for millions of workers, and push people out of their employer insurance plans. Some of those people will lose their health insurance all together. Others would be pushed onto federal programs, expanding the reach of Obamacare, and taxpayers would get stuck with the tab."
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post.
NLRB Protects Rights of Workers, But Republicans Only Want to Protect Profits for Corporations
Congressional Republicans are invoking a little-used oversight tool to try to overturn a National Labor Relations Board rule aimed at speeding union-organizing elections.
To block the NLRB rule, which was completed in December and scheduled to take effect on April 14, both chambers must approve the resolution and President Barack Obama must sign it—something he’s unlikely to do since the rule was approved by a board he appointed.
Still, the resolution reflects the GOP’s continuing frustration with the NLRB under the Obama administration. The board in recent months has been active issuing decisions it says are needed to address the evolution of the workplace and balance the rights of employers and employees, such as its December ruling that employees with access to their employer’s email system have the right to use it for union organizing and other communications about wages and working conditions – during “nonworking time.”
NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce defended the rule in a statement Monday, saying the board “remains committed” to its work and to “fully carrying out the law” the agency is in charge of enforcing.
“As Congress considers this resolution, this agency will continue productive conversations about the rule ensuring that our processes help fulfill the promise of the National Labor Relations Act,” said Mr. Pearce. “However, it is undeniable that modernizing and streamlining” the rule is “far overdue” and “businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish,” he said.
Congressional Democrats criticized the (Republican backed) resolution. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate labor committee, said in a statement that the rule would make elections fairer by helping workers get a seat at the bargaining table with employers.
“Republicans are making it clear that they are more interested in putting the profits of the biggest corporations ahead of the rights and opportunities of middle-class workers,” Ms. Murray said.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Glassdoor Review of ELS from 2015
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ELS-Language-Centers-Reviews-E313417.htm
Pros
It is a great opportunity to meet and interact with students from all over the world. You may not have the time or opportunity to travel around the world, but this work brings the world to you!
Cons
They don't want teachers, they want robots like Stepford Wives. There is no respect for competence, creativity or dedication in teachers. Pay is poor. There is no guarantee of hours and your schedule changes every 4 weeks. You have little or no advance knowledge what you will teach. I have walked in at 8 in the morning and been given my schedule of classes beginning at 8:30. There is no support from administration on my local level and the national management team seems to only communicate to criticize. The books are bad and the technology is sad.
Advice to Management
Get some management training. Communicate good news once in a while. Don't create an environment where staff feel a need to compete rather than collaborate.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Glassdoor Review of EF from 2013
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-EF-Education-First-North-America-RVW3237095.htm
I have been working at EF Education First North America full-time
Cons
Curriculum is repetitive and non-academic, management, false promises of 'higher pay and insurance'. Some students have to travel over an hour by bus and train. Some students live in homestays of 15+. Majority of students are younger than 19 and may think they are on vacation.
Advice to Management
Hire a manager that knows how to manage and a director who actually learns the teachers names and also observes teachers.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Converse School Review by Former Employee
Excerpts from:
Former Employee - English Teacher in San Francisco, CA
I worked at Converse International School of Languages full-time (more than 5 years)
The owner is extremely unlikeable and the bottom line -- school profit is the main concern. Teachers are not appreciated and treated pretty unfairly.
Get new management! Very negative and nasty, and not fair where compensation is concerned. A past academic director was concerned for teachers, but was fired.
Monday, December 15, 2014
NLRB Rules Employers Cannot Make Employees Sign
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements that contain clauses prohibiting employees from pursuing class or collective actions is a violation of federal labor law.
Friday, December 5, 2014
UK Worker Can't Afford to be a Teacher
Excerpts from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/04/zero-hours-contracts-teaching-job-insecurity?CMP=fb_gu
I’m tired of thinking I’ve secured a future for me and my child, tired of thinking I won’t have to worry about whether we both eat or whether we have heating, tired of worrying how we will cope if my child loses their school coat. I’ve decided to leave teaching for a supermarket job that will give me the security of knowing how much I’ll have available to pay my bills each month.
Before the summer I regularly worked 30 contracted hours a week across three organisations, over seven days (remember, as a teacher, preparation and marking aren’t counted so this is, in reality, more like 60-80 hours). That was how much I needed to work to ensure I didn’t need to claim work-related benefits – which would bite at my pride too much. But despite being told I would most likely have teaching in September, the phone didn’t ring in August or September. I swallowed my pride, claimed benefit for four weeks and applied for everything. In November I got a full-time post on a zero-hours contract. Bit by bit this has been wheedled down to six hours. I am back where I started, and devastated.
It’s humiliating not being able to pay my own way, having to check constantly if and how much I will be paid (one employer still owes me more than £600 – but there’s a time lag of almost eight weeks between them setting me up on their systems and being paid). It also ruins my mental health. I start wondering if it’s me, will it ever end, is there anything I’ve missed, anything else I can do? My anxiety levels are through the roof. Going to a supermarket brings on a racing pulse, light-headedness and complete panic that, if I buy food today, I won’t be able to pay for tomorrow’s crisis.
The thing about zero-hours contracts is that they’re normal. You can dress them up in all kinds of fancy language, but however you finesse it, in my personal experience, most FE employers use them for most of their staff. The handful of full-time posts that exist are often, understandably, snapped up by internal candidates who are already familiar with the system – which, by the way, creates another pressure to stay in a job, on a zero-hours contract, where you can’t pay your bills, because maybe, one day, it’ll be you. Zero-hours contracts also don’t relate to how good you are at your job or how hard you work. That’s irrelevant. You can have 30 hours teaching a week in July, all your students pass and in September you’re unemployed – except you’re not, because there’s always that hope that if you take on one more job, ask one more time, work a little harder, you may just be able to get by.
Zero-hours contracts are inhuman. They stop people planning for their futures and leave them in a state of perpetual fear. They encourage people to become workaholics and damage family life. And imagine the cost to society. Zero-hours contracts mean lower tax collected, less student loan – if any – paid back. There’s the cost to families too. When others are spending time with their kids, I’m working, snatching moments with my child by text or phone from seven in the morning until nine at night and weekends. I dread to imagine what my child thinks of me. I’ve tried to explain, but it’s difficult. So, in half an hour I will resign, teach my last class and head to an open day at Sainsbury’s in the hope of a job that means I can have the heating on, buy my child winter shoes and not panic next time a letter drops on the mat. Maybe I can start daring to imagine that it won’t be another crisis … but simply a Christmas card.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)