Posted on March 27th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: HR Issues, Politics | 
If you missed it, the Government Accountability Office issued a report of its investigation into the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage and hour laws (that’s overtime and minimum wage stuff, mostly).
It was not complimentary:
GAO found that WHD frequently responded inadequately to complaints, leaving low wage workers vulnerable to wage theft. Posing as fictitious complainants, GAO filed 10 common complaints with WHD district offices across the country. The undercover tests revealed sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems. In one case, a WHD investigator lied about investigative work performed and did not investigate GAO’s fictitious complaint. At the end of the undercover tests, GAO was still waiting for WHD to begin investigating three cases—a delay of nearly 5, 4, and 2 months, respectively.
Newly-minted Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has released a response, outlining her plans for the investigative unit. The text of the DOL press release is below.
WASHINGTON — Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today issued the following statement:
“I take the issues raised by the Government Accountability Office investigation regarding past Wage and Hour Division enforcement very seriously.
“As secretary of labor, I am committed to ensuring that every worker is paid at least the minimum wage, that those who work overtime are properly compensated, that child labor laws are strictly enforced and that every worker is provided a safe and healthful environment.
“The department’s Wage and Hour Division has already begun the process of adding 150 new investigators to its field offices to refocus the agency on these enforcement responsibilities. In addition, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the agency will hire 100 investigators to ensure that contractors on stimulus projects are in compliance with the applicable laws. The addition of these 250 new field investigators, a staff increase of more than a third, will reinvigorate the work of this important agency, which has suffered a loss of experienced personnel over the last several years.
“The U.S. Department of Labor is the voice for working families, and I am dedicated to ensuring compliance with federal labor laws to both strengthen our economy and protect workers in this country.”
###
Posted on March 17th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Employee Benefits, Labor Law, Politics, The Financial Crisis |
[Ed. Note: I have been looking for a way to channel my vitriol over the news that AIG wants to pay the guys who could arguably be blamed for the entire global economic meltdown $225 million in structured bonuses, and I'm hoping to do it through this post. That said, don't fault me if I start yelling. ]
I love David Greising. The Chicago Tribune and NPR business contributor seems to understand everything business, especially the stuff I don’t. This morning, he took on AIG’s bailout apologist CEO, Edward Liddy, for going soft on derivatives execs after canning 6000 Allstate employees a few years ago, employment contracts be damned.
Why, Greising asks, after pushing Allstate into a handful of class action lawsuits (two by the EEOC, even – that takes work) because he ignored the axed employees’ contracts, has the man brought in by the Bush Administration to clean up AIG dropped the broom?
Given his own history, Liddy’s explanation that his “hands are tied” because of the derivative department’s executive agreements is sad. Can you imagine the media tsunami that would follow a class-action lawsuit on behalf of AIG derivatives executives for their bonuses? It’s not even their salaries, it’s their #%*$@* bonuses! … [cough] sorry.
Honestly, it’s like Wall Street and K Street are having a “who can sound more hollow” contest.
Greising also points out that other ailing corporations, including Motorola and Continental Airlines, have worked out deals with their executives for pay cuts, bonus paybacks and the like.
And then there’s the big wrench in Liddy’s explanation – the United Auto Workers. They, too, had a contract. A few, actually. But nobody – not the government, the union or the automakers asking for tax money ever questioned whether it could be renegotiated.
And that’s as it should be.
So what’s different about AIG? How is it that, in the face of a furious public, following one of the biggest collective renegotiations in history, and with a proven executioner at the helm, this company can’t get out of paying millions in bonuses?
Is there a double standard among contracts for workers and contracts for executives? Probably. But Greising’s article proves that that can’t answer the whole question. Honestly, I think the real problem here is a denial of workplace realities.
When the auto industry was getting bailed out, one of the biggest arguments against giving them the money was that it would create a false sense of stability. The employees and executives of the Big 3 needed to understand the dire straits they were in, and government infusions would keep that from happening.
The same is clearly true at AIG. Employees and executives alike simply don’t understand how close to the edge they are. They want to pay bonuses to “retain talent”? Talent?
The department created confusing securitized investments that didn’t work. Now it’s months away from being wound down, and they’re still paying to retain talent? This is a group of people who need to feel their livelihoods are in jeopardy. That’s why the UAW renegotiated their deals. That’s why Motorola execs adjusted theirs, too.
Employment contracts are only as good as the companies that agree to them. Perhaps if AIG were suddenly small enough to fail (potentially, at least), its employees would find it in their hearts to discuss their compensation structures.
Posted on March 11th, 2009 by Aaron Janik | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Labor Law, Politics, Schools |
President Obama laid out his education reform plan yesterday, and a litany of organizations of educators and education reformers have already given their take on it.
The American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten stated in a press release, “The AFT fully supports the President’s call for shared responsibility for education…” A bold move, maybe, since many AFT locals disagree with the President’s view on merit-based pay. Weingarten went onto state, “as with any public policy the devil is in the details.”
One of the arguments against merit based pay is that rewarding teachers with more pay based on the achievements of their students is biased and unfair. Critics of merit based pay feel that many low performing schools won’t improve just by giving the teachers more money.
Their argument is that money is not the only problem when it comes to these low performing schools. Parental responsibility and involvement coupled with socio-economic factors are just some of the reasons the areas these schools are underperforming and no amount of money will fix these problems until a conscience effort is made by all in the education process (i.e., families, teachers, administrators) to “fix the system”.
Proponents of the merit based pay system feel that by rewarding teachers who strive to improve, not only their students test scores, but themselves professionally, schools will retain the best and brightest of educators, who, in turn, will improve the educational process in their schools.
One thing President Obama did not address with much detail yesterday was the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLB has been a contentious issue since its enactment. Many feel it requires teachers to “teach to the test”, and it disregards classes such as music, PE, and art. As Obama gets settled and attempts to get the economy rolling again, a plethora of educators will be waiting to see what he does, if anything, with NCLB.
