Menu

Workers’ Rights

The Chamber’s Anti-Union Advocacy Strikes Again

, , 0

While in 2022 there’s never a lack of news to follow and absorb, we at Public Citizen are always keeping a watchful eye on the actions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. After all, this mainstay corporate advocacy organization has long since made itself an enemy to most progressive ideals, causes, and issues. But what’s the latest target of their toxic advocacy?

The increased ability of workers to form a union.

Recently, President Biden’s appointed General Counsel of the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, submitted a legal brief requesting that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) restore prior precedent and reimplement the Joy Silk Doctrine when making their decisions on labor union bargaining enforcement, triggering the ire of the consistently employer biased U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Given the improvement to workers’ lives and morale increased unionization could bring, it’s no surprise that the U.S. Chamber came out so strongly against it, declaring that “we will oppose this action with every tool a tour disposal, including litigation if needed”.

But let’s slow down. Joy Silk what?

 

Put simply, the Joy Silk Doctrine mandates that the NLRB order employers to negotiate and recognize unions if they do not possess a good faith doubt that they possess a majority. If no good faith doubt is present, employers would be subject to punishment for unfair labor practices as a matter of law. The burden of proof would now be on the employer to prove to the Labor Board their rationale for the union’s lack of majority status.  By returning to this prior precedent, unions would be able to be recognized based on signed cards expressing majority worker support, bypassing the oft times destructive union election process.

Our introduction to the Joy Silk Doctrine takes us all the way back to the charmed year of 1949 with the National Labor Relations Board case. All of this should sound glaringly familiar, as companies around the country regularly use “requests for elections” simply to create colossal corporate campaigns to whittle down union support. In fact, a 2019 study by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that employers are charged with violating federal labor laws in over 40% of all union election campaigns. Not exactly a fair fight.

For a timely example, look no further than the consistent anti-union activities of Amazon. Being one of the largest employers in the country, a successful unionization at Amazon would be a galvanizing effort for workers’ rights everywhere. And last year, in Bessemer, Alabama, their anti-union methods came out in full force, conducting improper surveillance, mounting a multi- million-dollar anti-union campaign, and even going as far as changing traffic signals to make it harder for labor organizers to interact with the Amazon workers. So even though the recent union victory last month in New York despite these harmful tactics is nothing to sneeze at, wouldn’t it be better if there was a way to bypass this whole process in the first place?

We at Public Citizen think so. Public Citizen continue to monitor the Chamber’s actions, and push for both the re adoption of the Joy Silk Doctrine. The power balance between workers and employers has been woefully unequal for far too long.

 

 

who is McConnell protecting: essential workers or essential donors?

Public Citizen Issue Brief Documents Chamber’s False Cries That the Sky is Falling

, , , , 0

By Nick Papazyan, Congress Watch Legal Intern

The coronavirus pandemic has claimed more American lives than all of the wars since the Korean War– combined. The virus is raging across the country, and we haven’t even begun what scientists call the “second wave.” At a time when we should be prioritizing public health and safety, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) are seeking to immunize businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits. On July 16, Public Citizen published an issue brief that exposes how the Chamber opportunistically uses moments of national emergency, such as a pandemic, to advance its anti-consumer agenda. Immunizing businesses would endanger workers, slow reopening of businesses, and give corporate wrongdoers a pass when they fail to take reasonable actions to keep people safe.

Despite the Chamber’s warnings that a flood of coronavirus cases is imminent, its rhetoric has no basis in fact. The issue brief exposes how the Chamber has used Chicken Little’s the “sky is falling” rhetoric for more than 20 years to scare legislators, the media, and the public to limit individuals’ access to the justice system

Yet, the sky never falls. A flood of litigation never emerges.

Months deep into the pandemic, there is no sign of a flood of coronavirus litigation against companies. In fact, the biggest bucket of cases by far are business-to-business lawsuits. The second biggest number of cases are civil rights violations, many of which only seek court intervention to stop alleged civil rights violations rather than award money damages.

Yet, the Chamber continues to push a false and hyperbolic narrative, even when it is unpopular with the public. Sixty-four percent of voters oppose letting corporations off the hook by giving them immunity from liability if it is proved that a company “engaged in unsafe practices.” That includes 72% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans.

As the issue brief cogently points out, “[i]mmunity from liability will not restore our country from this time of hardship.” Instead, make sure that Mitch McConnell knows that lawmakers must prioritize public health over corporate profits. Only then, after businesses are safe for workers, consumers, and patients, can the nation begin to recover.

gavel

The Chamber’s Report Claiming Forced Arbitration Benefits Workers is a Farce

, , 0

Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-affiliated Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released a report titled “Fairer, Faster, Better: An Empirical Assessment of Employment Arbitration.” If that title causes you to raise an eyebrow, you’re right to be suspicious. Through dubious evidence and misleading rationale, the ILR report concludes that workers benefit more by being forced into arbitration rather than being allowed to press their claim in open court before a neutral judge and jury.

Forced arbitration is a system wherein workers must give up their right to sue their employer or join a class action against the employer should they face harm such as discrimination or harassment in the workplace. Rather than have these claims of harms assessed by an impartial judge and jury, employees under forced arbitration clauses in their contracts must instead seek to address grievances before private arbitrators. These arbitrators do not have to follow judicial precedent, and the complaints alleged in arbitration cases are rarely made public, keeping other employees or the public at large in the dark about the harms that have occurred within a corporation. For these and other reasons, despite the ILR’s claims, forced arbitration is very much not beneficial to workers.

The Chamber and ILR have longed advocated for forced arbitration, a dispute resolution process that advantages Big Business, for example by allowing companies to escape full accountability for wrongdoing like wage theft and misclassification of workers.

The ILR report was written by ndp | analytics, a strategic research firm that for large corporate clients.  The report seems designed as a tool for corporate lobbyists to sway lawmakers to oppose any legislation that would prohibit companies from forcing workers, consumers, and small businesses into forced arbitration. It is no surprise, then, that the report was conveniently published shortly before a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives on forced arbitration.

Over the years, the Chamber has consistently taken anti-worker stances on other matters of civil justice and workplace safety. The ILR report even fits with one of the Chamber’s favorite tricks: claiming that pro-worker policies like overtime protection and a higher minimum wage would be harmful to workers. The Chamber loves to pretend it’s standing up for David when it advocates for Goliath’s favored policies. The Chamber’s stance on forced arbitration flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus among labor experts that the practice is harmful to workers.

The ILR’s so-called “empirical assessment” mentioned in the report’s title amounts to selectively using misleading data to advance an ideological narrative, and the report’s methodology is designed to skew the results in ways that favor the Chamber’s dubious claims.

Labor policy experts Terri Gerstein and Heidi Shierhold write in the American Prospect that the report is “an epic presentation of wrong answers to wrong questions.” Gertstein and Shierholz note that the report’s data is glaringly selective in deeply misleading ways. For instance, the report omits class actions and state court lawsuits in its litigation data, glosses over the fact that forced arbitration’s biggest problem is that it “prevents workers from ever bringing cases in the first place,” and neglects decades of established academic studies on the topic showing that consumers and workers lose out when they are forced into arbitration.

In an expanded critique of the report on the Economic Policy Institute blog, Gertstein and Shierholz note several more flaws in the report’s methods and conclusions. These include that:

  • The information available on arbitration is extremely limited and the report analyzes only a small fraction of the arbitration cases that occurred between 2014 and 2018
  • The report analyzes employees in the arbitration sample with much higher earnings than the general public
  • The report fails to consider the benefit litigation has in securing settlements in cases that do not go to trial

The end result, Gerstein and Shierholz argue, is to skew the results of the analysis toward the Chamber’s pre-existing premise that forced arbitration is beneficial for workers.

Perhaps the Chamber is tossing out every argument it can in the hopes that something will stick, no matter how patently ridiculous the claim, because it sees the growing bipartisan momentum against forced arbitration. Three congressional hearings focusing on forced arbitration have already been held in 2019 alone. In February, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The FAIR Act would prohibit companies from forcing consumers, workers, and small businesses into using arbitration before a dispute has even occurred. And according to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of both Republicans and Democrats support ending the practice of forcing workers, consumers, and small businesses into arbitration.

Forced arbitration restricts the rights of workers, consumers, and small businesses to seek justice in court before an impartial judge and jury and shields corporations from accountability for illegal practices and other wrongdoing. We should see ILR’s flailing for what it is: an attempt by the Chamber, afraid of the strength of the movement against forced arbitration, to pull the wool over lawmakers’—and the public’s—eyes so it can preserve anti-worker policies that benefit the bottom line of its corporate benefactors.

U.S. Chamber Watch is a project of Public Citizen. If you’d like to learn more about the Chamber, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Kavanaugh photo superimposed over US Chamber headquarters

In Judge Kavanaugh, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sees an Appealing Ally

, , 0

As the country anxiously watches the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, the nation’s political dialogue has been ablaze. Not to be left out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the fray recently with a blog post titled “The Right Judge for the Job.” The post, by Chamber president Tom Donohue, is exactly what it sounds like: a full-throated endorsement of Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Public Citizen’s U.S. Chamber Watch project has frequently exposed the Chamber’s long-established right-wing leanings, from its campaign donations to the revolving door of staffers between the Chamber and various conservative institutions. But even by the Chamber’s standards, this endorsement is jaw-dropping. As the Chamber claims to be a politically unbiased institution only looking out for business interests, you would be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at the Chamber endorsing President Trump’s recent Supreme Court nominee. When you begin to dig into Judge Kavanaugh’s history of rulings, though, the Chamber’s support for his confirmation starts to make a whole lot of sense.

In a recent report, Chamber Watch found that in 25 of the 33 cases (76%) in which the Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), or the American Petroleum Institute (API) participated as party or amicus curiae, Kavanaugh sided with the position advanced by the business groups.

This investigation serves to underscore the extent to which the Chamber’s legal activity now intersects with federal policy. As Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, put it, “Over the past several decades, big business associations, led by the Chamber, have become far more active in federal litigation. The involvement of these associations signals to judges what the Chamber and other trade associations believe to be important.”

It is also consistent with another recent Public Citizen report that found that in 87% of cases, Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion in split-decision on issues like regulatory issues, environmental protection, and worker rights sided with Big Business and against the public interest. These issues are some of the Chamber’s top priorities; the Chamber wants fewer consumer safeguards, fewer environmental standards, and fewer labor protections, because those policies let it pursue higher profits no matter the human cost.

With all of this in mind, the Chamber’s fulsome endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation begins to look brazenly self-interested. It wants an ally on the Court who will rule with its arguments in litigation and with its policy agenda. Based on Kavanaugh’s history of rulings, it may have made a safe bet.

photo of a "binding contract"-- stack of papers that has a lock through it

U.S. Chamber Files SCOTUS Brief In Support of Forced Arbitration for Employees

, 0

One of the most important legal tools that exists to protect against corporate wrongdoing is allowing harmed individuals to band together to sue as a class or collective action. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can use forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts to block employees from bringing collective and class action lawsuits against their employer. As a result, employers will have free rein to force employees to sign arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring collective or class actions as a condition of employment.

This is a devastating blow to workers’ rights because it is difficult for workers to prove violations of the law such as wage theft or discrimination if they cannot band together with co-workers to show a pattern of abuse. Class actions are also more efficient and can be the only feasible way to bring small dollar claims since the cost of bringing a case can outweigh the monetary harm to any one person but the wrongdoing was widespread. Last week’s SCOTUS decision, Epic Systems v. Lewis, will herald in an era of further restrictions for workers’ access to the courts and drastically weaken the ability to achieve justice in the face of accountability for employers’ wrongdoing. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s hands are all over this misguided decision.

The Chamber filed a “friend of the court” amicus brief in support of the employers, arguing that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not protect against forced arbitration as the employees’ legal team argued it does. It makes sense that the Chamber is so invested in advocating for weak employee protections; this fits in with the Chamber’s long legacy of hostility toward workers’ rights. The corporations that make up the Chamber’s membership have a financial interest in employers’ unmitigated ability to dictate all the terms of employees’ contracts.

The Chamber’s allies in the corporate sphere are already jumping at the opportunities provided by the Court’s decision. Shortly after the decision was announced, employment firm Ogletree Deakins released an automated ‘DIY’ tool for companies to include forced arbitration clauses in their contracts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is alarming to civil rights and consumer rights activists who worry that the decision will limit employees’ access to justice in order to fight a whole host of corporate wrongdoing including discrimination, wage theft, and sexual harassment. Just this week, in light of the Epic decision, Chipotle petitioned a court to exclude more than 2,000 persons from an ongoing wage theft lawsuit because the company argued the workers signed arbitration agreements that prohibited them from joining any class actions.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that “[i]t would be grossly exorbitant to read the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] to devastate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws enacted to eliminate, root and branch, class-based employment discrimination.” She also called on Congress to pass legislation that would affirm the right of employees to join class actions to oppose discriminatory employment contracts such as violations of equal pay for women.

Public Citizen is committed to doing just that by working to make sure the Arbitration Fairness Act is passed, which prohibits forced arbitration for employment, consumer, antitrust or civil rights disputes, and also by spearheading corporate campaigns to call on individual companies to voluntarily end the use of forced arbitration clauses. If the Arbitration Fairness Act were to receive a vote—something that’s not likely in the current Congress, unfortunately—you can bet that the Chamber’s voice would bellow in opposition as it has done in the past.

As Public Citizen noted in its own friend of the court brief that we filed in support of workers, access to the courts is an essential right for workers and consumers to in standing up to corporate abuses. The Chamber, it seems, would prefer to let those abuses run rampant.

U.S. Chamber Watch is a project of Public Citizen. If you’d like to learn more about the Chamber, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

photo of workers in hard hats on the job

The U.S. Chamber’s Next Assault on Labor: Crushing Worker Centers

, , 0

It will likely not surprise you that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not too fond of unions. The ability for workers to collectively bargain and improve the conditions of their employment is a threat to the bottom lines of the corporations that make up the Chamber’s membership. The Chamber is motivated to block the power of unions by its desire for corporations to have the ability to keep wages low for their workforce, to limit workplace safety protections, and to make sure that workers can’t fight back.

What you may not know, however, is that the Chamber also opposes other, non-union labor initiatives. Enter worker centers. Worker centers are groups of working people from certain sectors who do not have the legal right to collectively bargain, but are nevertheless an important force in advocating for the rights of workers and their communities. Worker centers might organize for better wages and benefits, or they might educate the public about injustices such as racism in the labor market. They do not have the same legal status as a union, but they provide a valuable safety net to workers who do not or cannot belong to a union.

Apparently, the Chamber is outraged by even that level of worker protection. They have taken up the mantle of impugning worker centers with the ultimate goal of doing away with them. In April, the Chamber released a report entitled “Worker Centers: Union Front Groups and the Law.” In it, the Chamber lays out the argument that worker centers are “union front groups”—that is, that they are secretly unions going by another name and should be regulated the same way unions are. This is transparently absurd: worker centers exist specifically to serve populations that are not served by unions, and they lack the power to collectively bargain, which is one of the defining attributes of unions. The Chamber would have us ignore this clear distinction because it is inconvenient for its narrative.

As is so often the case, this effort to dismantle the power of worker centers by the Chamber mirrors a similar effort by the GOP. House Republicans have vowed to make the same changes to worker centers’ legal classification as the Chamber is advocating for.

Of course, if the Chamber and its buddies in the GOP truly felt that worker centers are secretly unions, they could say that centers should have all of the same collective bargaining power as unions do. But of course they won’t do that, because these arguments are in bad faith: the Chamber and its allies know full well that worker centers are merely a minimal line of defense for workers who have nothing else to protect them, and are unable to tolerate even that meager level of worker protections.

It should not surprise us that the Chamber takes such consistently anti-worker stances. However, it actually may surprise the corporations that are members of the Chamber and proclaim to care about their workers’ lives and well-being. For instance, McDonald’s and Gap both having sections on their websites about respecting the human rights of their workers. These companies should take a long look at the Chamber’s appalling record on workers’ rights and withdraw their funding and support for the Chamber.

Photo credit: Flickr user Washington State Dept. of Transportation | CC BY 2.0

U.S. Chamber Watch is a project of Public Citizen. If you’d like to learn more about the Chamber, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

uber_lyft

U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Embrace of the Gig Economy Points to Downside for Workers

0

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a case against a Seattle ordinance that would allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize. Seattle’s ordinance was passed in 2015 and would enable drivers to band together and collectively bargain with giant ride-hailing companies regarding pay, benefits, and working conditions.

The plaintiff in this case was none other than that relentless defender of corporate exploitation — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber argued without any evidence that the “ordinance will burden innovation, increase prices, and reduce quality and services for consumers.” This is actually the second complaint that the Chamber has filed against this law — an earlier case was thrown out last year — although another suit against the ordinance is still ongoing.

The rights of Uber and Lyft drivers have become an increasingly contentious subject as the ride-hailing platforms have expanded. Although the Seattle ordinance is designed to bypass this issue, much of the debate centers on how to classify these drivers in terms of their relationship with the ride hailing companies for which they work. Uber and Lyft have an incentive to categorize their drivers as “independent contractors”. This enables the companies to dodge monetary obligations — such as payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare as well as providing health insurance — that come with a traditional employer-employee relationship.

Workers’ rights advocates believe that drivers should be considered employees. After all, prices are set by Uber and Lyft rather than by their “independent” drivers. As employees, drivers would be entitled to overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and other important rights that this status would afford them. In any case, it is easy to see why drivers have voiced concerns about the existing arrangement that deprives them of a host of rights, benefits, and protections.

The current arrangement, under which ride hailing companies treat their drivers as independent contractors with no formal employment contract, has revealed itself to be seriously flawed. Despite Uber’s claims to the contrary, some of its workers fail to make minimum wage. The company is also notorious for its mistreatment of drivers. In fact, a report by the New York Times detailed the types of mind games the company plays in order to get more rides out of its drivers. While Lyft enjoys a far better public reputation, the company still confronts questions over the status of its workers. Allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize could be a solution to many of these problems as it would provide drivers with the bargaining power necessary to successfully negotiate with giant corporations.

The Chamber is predictably opposed to unionizing the ride hailing industry. According to the Chamber, unions are simply relics of the past and the push to represent Uber and Lyft drivers represents a “last gasp” of sorts. The Chamber argues that unionization would limit the freedom of these drivers and that ordinances like the one in Seattle would constitute a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and antitrust law. However, in dismissing the case against the ordinance, the district court judge noted that the NLRA does not in fact prevent the city from passing such a lawcovering independent contractors.

The dispute over the Seattle ordinance and the status of Uber and Lyft drivers points to a larger debate about the nature of the “gig economy”. The gig economy — in which people earn money through flexible, short-term arrangements like driving for Uber or performing chores on Task Rabbit — represents a major shift in the workforce over the past few years.  While the gig economy has expanded earning opportunities for many, it also poses serious risks for individuals who operate outside of traditional employee contracts. Unions could help to ensure that gig economy workers have access to health plans, higher wages, paid leave and a certain amount of employment stability. While a recent survey revealed that a majority of gig economy workers believe they should have access to greater benefits, the Chamber argues that the gig economy “seems to be working just fine.”

The Chamber’s insistence that everything is going swimmingly with the gig economy should come as no surprise. The gig economy has been a boon to giant corporations by reducing their labor costs, and the Chamber has a consistent record of putting profits before people. The Chamber also has a long history of fighting against workers’ protections, given that it was initially founded “to act as a counterweight to the growing labor movement.” The gig economy’s role in goosing corporate profits while weakening the labor movement explains why the Chamber was so determined to fight the Seattle ordinance in court.

It is often easy to become seduced by the siren song of technological “progress” and “innovation.” The Chamber’s embrace of the gig economy should serve as a warning to us all that simply because an industry is new and “innovative” doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be scrutinized to see if it treats its workers fairly and justly.

NLRB

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Pushes Dangerous NLRB Nominees in Effort to Stack the Deck Against Workers

0

Marvin Kaplan is being rushed through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nomination process faster than you can hire and fire Anthony Scaramucci. Kaplan, currently counsel at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and previously employed by House Republicans on the education and oversight committees, received a swift and enthusiastic backing from the anti-worker U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This past February, the Chamber outlined what it believes to be the ten most pressing policies that require action at the NLRB and the many instances in which the Obama-era NLRB allegedly “stack[ed] the deck against employers.” The list covers a range of anti-worker topics, many of which Kaplan boasts about having experience in on his Linkedin account, including his “efforts to fight DOL overtime rules.” The overtime rulewould provide overtime pay to millions of workers and would have the salutary benefit of exerting upward pressure on wages for middle income Americans whose salaries have long been stagnant. Kaplan also boasts about drafting the “Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,” a piece of legislation the Chamber backed, which sought to undo the NLRB rule that cut the waiting time for union elections down to as few as 10 days.

While the Chamber’s labor policy wish list touches on a plethora of issues, it focuses most intently on collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, an effective means of raising wages (no wonder the Chamber hates it!), is the process by which workers, with their unions, negotiate contracts with their employers. Terms of employment that are oftentimes covered in collective bargaining include wages, benefits, hours, worker safety and a slew of other protections.  The NLRB is frequently asked to rule on disputes relating to collective bargaining in addition to many other high-profile labor topics, including examination of “joint employer” relationships, and will be looked to to make a determination as to whether or not graduate students should be considered employees with the right to unionize.

Kaplan isn’t the only bad actor being nominated to the NLRB. William Emanuel of the law firm Littler Mendelson, has also been nominated, and has also received supportfrom the Chamber. Kaplan and Emanuel, both nominated at the end of June both had hearings less than 3 weeks later, one of the speediest nomination processes thus far in the Trump administration.

Trump, the Chamber, and their GOP allies in the House and Senate have all complained that under Obama, the NLRB imposed what they deem to be burdensome regulations on businesses. Their criticisms of the NLRB indicate that they fundamentally misunderstand that one of the major functions of the board is to enforce the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, guaranteeing the right of most private sector employees to organize.

It comes as no surprise that the Chamber is asking for a swift confirmation process. Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, refers to Kaplan as a “balanced and thoughtful” individual, going on to say that the Chamber has “worked with Marvin over the years and he will be a great addition to the NLRB.” Which, when translated out of Chamber-speak, means something more along the lines of, “this is just the guy we need to achieve those ten policy goals!” The Chamber’s support for each of these nominees is rooted in its desire to destroy worker protections in an effort to protect corporate profits; the speed at which the nomination process is occurring just goes to show how antsy the Chamber and its GOP allies are to strip workers of their rights and hand over even more power to giant corporations.

An Open Letter to Allstate CEO Tom Wilson, Newly-Elected Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

, 0

Dear Tom Wilson,

Congratulations on your new role as Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Because this is an important position, one that has the potential to steer the direction the Chamber takes throughout the next year, we wanted to remind you of an op-ed you wrote last September for the Washington Post titled, “How corporations can be a force for good.”

In your piece, you call upon companies to use their influence to promote policies that benefit the labor force and the planet, while still yielding profits. In the months since your September op-ed, President Trump was elected and took office, and he now has begun rolling back a whole raft of policies that were aimed at protecting workers and the environment. As such, there’ve been no shortages of opportunities for companies to, in your well-timed words, “be a force for good,” by using their influence to oppose the rollback of these policies.

Let’s start with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Allstate has expressed concern over the impacts of climate change, signing onto the 2013 CERES Climate Declaration, as well as committing to reduce energy use. While we haven’t heard from Allstate, we have heard a chorus of business voices disavowing President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. From Facebook, to Google, to Tesla, companies used their influence to defend environmental responsibility, because like you said, “fully integrating social good into a corporation’s purpose is also good for business.”

In light of your own support for action to combat climate change as well as the support of much of the business community, Americans and shareholders want to know what will you do to reverse the Chamber’s anti-climate policies? It is the Chamber that funded the debunked study that Trump used to justify his decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. What’s more, the Chamber is one of the loudest and most influential voices lobbying and litigating against action on climate change. Are you not concerned, in your new role leading the Chamber – the very entity that lauds itself as the voice for business – that it is out of step with some of the country’s other largest corporations? “Corporations should be encouraged and rewarded for stepping up to solve society’s problems,” you wrote, and in present times, it would seem that the well-being of our planet is one of society’s more pressing problems. What will you do to get the Chamber to change direction and step up to solve the global crisis of climate change?

It isn’t just climate policy, however, that has companies at odds with the Chamber. At Allstate, you raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour because, in your words, “it was good business to do so” (something many others agree on) and because “more prosperous communities with better-educated workers and customers also provide a much better economic and business climate.” Why then, does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which you now chair, oppose raising the minimum wage every chance it gets, while also continuing its fight against overtime pay? As chairman of the Chamber, what will you do to reverse the Chamber’s ferocious opposition to raising the minimum wage and implementing the overtime rule?

What’s more, 57 percent of your employees at Allstate are women, many of them with management roles. While Allstate’s commitment to hiring and promoting women is to be commended, are you aware that the Chamber consistently lobbies against policies that promote workplace equity for women? What will you do to reverse the Chamber’s opposition to pro-women, pro-family policies such as equal pay, paid leave and banning pregnancy discrimination?

If you are serious about corporations being a force for good, then you must, in your capacity as Chamber chairman, ensure that the Chamber reverses course on all of these issues. And if under your leadership, the leading voice of Big Business in Washington continues to use its megaphone to be the loudest advocate for policies that harm workers, women and the planet, it seems that your own advice would leave you with no choice but to step down from your position as chairman.  Because after all, in your words, “social good is good for business.” If the Chamber won’t reverse course and support social good, then it isn’t doing good for business. Neither for your own company’s good, nor those of many of your peers.

Sincerely,

The U.S. Chamber Watch Project

If you’d like to learn more about Public Citizen’s Chamber Watch project, you can always visit us on www.chamberofcommercewatch.org or follow us on Facebook andTwitter.

Facebook -- People's Time (1)

The Chamber’s War on Workers: Comp Time Edition

0

The new Republican Congress is only four months old, but it’s already shown that it cares far more about big corporations than the millions of Americans who work for them. This Congress has made the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s priorities its priorities, and this week, the House is set to vote on a bill that is the latest front in the Chamber’s War on Workers.

The deceptively named Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801), introduced by Rep. Martha Roby (R – Ala.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R – Utah), and vigorously supported by the Chamber would allow employers to offer comp time as an alternative to time-and-a-half overtime pay when employees work more than 40 hours in a week.  H.R. 1180 would give even more power to employers over employees’ wages and working hours and further undermine workers’ ability to make ends meet, while doing nothing to increase flexibility for employees.

Last month, Leonard Court testified in support of H.R. 1180 on behalf of the Chamber at a House Education and Workforce Committee Hearing. In his testimony, Court stated, among many other false narratives, that “the decision to opt for comp time always rests with the employee, not the employer.” Unfortunately, this is not the case. H.R. 1180 further widens the power gap between an employee and her or her employer in a number of ways, making it a bill that Public Citizen opposes.

Under the law, employers would have the final say as to whether to offer an employee comp time instead of overtime, and have the power to deny an employee’s request to use their comp time. For example, an employee who had opted to receive comp time for overtime hours worked could have enough hours saved up to take off work to care for a sick family member, but could still have her request denied by her boss.

What’s more, there is no guarantee that an employee who does not accept comp time in lieu of time and half overtime pay would not find herself penalized with fewer hours and loss of overtime work. An employer who wants to avoid paying overtime may just stop asking employees that refuse comp time to work overtime and instead ask employees amenable to comp time to work extra hours. Such employees will see their earnings decline without any corresponding benefits if this bill becomes law.

The Working Families Flexibility Act- or rather the Betrayal of Working Families Act- would be a step in the wrong direction for hourly, full-time workers as well as for salaried, non-exempt workers who are eligible for overtime pay. Instead of providing working people and their families with the time off and the financial stability they need to care for themselves and their loved ones, this “flexibility” bill offers forced choices and false promises.

In addition to providing employers with even more power over their employees, H.R. 1180 increases the already not-insignificant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and instead rely on existing employees working overtime hours to get the job done. Under H.R. 1180, employers can “pay” for these overtime hours in future comp time, as opposed to having to pay for them immediately in wages. This in turn could mean that H.R. 1180 could result in less hiring, leaving more people unemployed.

Workers are never better off if they accept comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but instead, can end up in a much worse situation with increased risk and delay in pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act is already in place to allow an employer to grant time off to employees who work overtime, and H.R. 1180 adds nothing new in this regard.

This legislation is a classic case of Chamber smoke and mirrors. This bill would make it harder for people who need to work extra hours to pay their bills while providing no real guarantee of increased comp time. Its ultimate goal is to make labor cheaper for corporations. Of course, in so doing, it takes money out of the pockets of working people.

It’s a shame that the GOP Congress has embraced another Chamber-touted windfall for big business. But why should we be surprised? After all, when the Chamber and other corporate interests spend big on elections, we wind up with politicians who are beholden to corporations rather than the American people.

 

Load More