The DOL Addresses ‘White Collar’ Slavery

labor

The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 CFR Part 541, makes it possible for employers to impose a kind of slavery on poorly-paid salaried employees who are exempt from the protections of the act because they are classified as “white collar” workers.

However, the U.S. Department of Labor this week released proposed amendments to the FLSA  “white collar” exemption provision that would, if adopted, eventually eliminate the exempt status of an estimated  21.4  million so-called “white collar” employees.

The FLSA exemption now applies to employees whose job duties primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties and who  earn a salary of at least $455 per week or $23,660 a year.  The DOL’s proposed regulations dramatically increase the minimum salary threshold for exempt status workers to $970 per week or $50,440 per year. This represents the 40th percentile of earnings for all full-time salaried workers throughout the United States.

Low-level white collar workers are ripe for exploitation, especially during difficult economic times when jobs are scarce.  During the Great Recession, many employers forced poorly-paid white collar workers to work endless or erratic unpaid overtime hours  to compensate for lay-offs or short staffing.  This caused predictable stress and burnout, with all of the attendant problems for individuals and families.  The “white collar” exemption is particularly brutal for single parents (mostly women) who must schedule and pay for child care.

The DOL has not updated the “white collar” salary level since 2004.  To prevent the proposed new salary level from becoming outdated, the DOL’s proposes  automatically updating the salary level each year to reflect the applicable 40th  percentile of earnings.  [Read more…]

Trump’s Gone; Can We Acknowledge the Rapes?

Trump you're fired

It has been known for years that undocumented girls and women who are making the trek from Mexico to the United States are being subjected to epidemic sexual violence.

But Donald Trump’s assertion that Mexico is sending rapists to the United States has caused a media firestorm in both countries.

Trump was fired  by NBC this week and both NBC and Univision dumped the Miss Universe Pageant, that nauseating display of 50’s era sexist cheesecake.  Few would argue that the tone of Trump’s statements were racist.

And yet it is ironic that Trump’s blundering assertion seems to have garnered far more attention than the actual plight of  Mexican girls and women who are being raped on their journeys to the United States (even if their rapists do not actually cross the border into America). 

Maybe now Mexico and the United States will do something about the real problem of sexual violence against migrant girls and women?

A Fusion investigation , which was reported last fall by the Huffington Post,  stated that 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey.  Fusion is a television channel that reflects a collaboration of Disney/ABC and Univision.

In 2010, Amnesty International reported that 60 percent of migrant girls and women suffered sexual violence at the hands of criminal gangs, people traffickers, other migrants or corrupt officials. According to Amnesty International, “It is a widely held view – shared by local and international NGOs and health professionals working with migrant women – that as many as six in 10 migrant women and girls are raped.”  The rape victims are afraid to report the crime for fear they will be deported.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that  in FY 2011, the number of Mexican children apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was 13,000, rising to 15,709 in FY 2012 and reaching 18,754 in FY 2013.

Do ‘Nice Guys’ Finish Last?

Duroucher

Baseball player Leo Durocher famously said “nice guys finish last.”

Do they?

There is no conclusive answer to this question but Christine Porath, in a recent article for the New York Times, argues that politeness and regard for others in the workplace pays off.  She cited a study involving a biotechnology company that found workers who are seen as civil are twice as likely to be viewed as leaders.

Unfortunately, it’s not hard to find research that comes to the opposite conclusion. At least one study shows that agreeableness affects income – particularly for women. Nice gals and guys are thought to earn less than co-workers who are not nice.

I submit that Duroucher’s question misses the point.

A smart employer, mindful of the bottom line, would not knowingly  promote a worker who  is rude, engages in workplace bullying or fails to show respect for others.  

Employers increasingly recognize that incivility or bullying in the workplace is bad for business and the bottom line. An abusive workplace exposes a company to expensive and unnecessary turnover, low morale and productivity, higher medical costs and needless risk of litigation. Moreover, research shows that workplace bullies act for their own selfish reasons, in complete disregard for the success of the employer. The success of a  bully in a workplace is directly proportional to  the employer’s failure  to effectively manage the company’s most critical resource  – its workforce.

EEOC Official Blasts Age Discrim. in High Tech Industry

EEOC.TechsYoungWorkforce

 Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, senior counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),  singled out the problem of virulent age discrimination in the high tech industry during a talk Tuesday before the National Press Foundation.

“Some of our offices have made it a priority in  looking at age discrimination in the tech industry,” she told journalists during a question and answer period.

Age discrimination in Silicon Valley has been  open and flagrant for years, and has been the subject of  numerous articles in both this blog and national publications.  A class action age discrimination lawsuit was filed against Google, Inc. on April 22 by software engineer Robert Heath who was interviewed but not hired for a position there in 2011 when he was 60-years-of-age. The lawsuit alleges Google has demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.EEOC.TechsYoungWorkforce

Vontrell-Monsees  observed that 70% of IT staff surveyed by Information Week said they’ve witnesses or experienced age discrimination. In addition, she said, 42% of age 50+ workers in the high tech industry consider age to be a liability in their career – more than double the rate of other industries.  She also pointed to job advertisements in the tech industry for “digital natives,” “recent” or “new” graduates or “Class of 2007 or 2008 preferred”. She said that “there’s no question age discrimination is a challenge for older workers.”

Vontrell-Monsees’ address is significant because the EEOC has ignored an unprecedented increase in age discrimination claims that began with the Great Recession. In my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I show that the number of age discrimination claims jumped from 19,103 in 2007 to an all-time high of 24,582 in 2008. Meanwhile, the number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC with age discrimination claims declined from a modern-day high of 50 in 2006 to a low of seven lawsuits in 2013. This despite the fact that age discrimination catapults older workers into long-term unemployment, forced retirement, and poverty or near poverty in their old age. Having acknowledged the problem, one can only hope the EEOC will now do something about it.

Here are some of other points made by Ventrell-Monsees in her address:

  • Unemployment for people aged 50 and older more than doubled to 7.6%from 2007 to 2011.
  • Older workers remain unemployed for the longest periods – 36 weeks in 2011 compared to 26 weeks for younger job seekers.
  • More than one-third of all unemployed older workers in 2011 had been unemployed for more than a year.
  • The percentage of age discrimination cases filed by women jumped from 32 percent in 2007 to 45 percent in 2013. She added that proving age discrimination in court is difficult.