Jun 22, 2017 | PERMALINK »
San Francisco Leads on Fair Scheduling, But Better Enforcement Needed
When San Francisco passed the Formula Retail Employee Rights Ordinances (FRERO) in November 2014, it broke new ground for workers’ rights. FRERO was the first public policy to attack unfair scheduling practices and has bolstered support for similar policies around the nation.
Scheduling on the Cutting Edge, a new report from CLASP and Young Workers United, highlights FRERO’s great promise as well as the work still needed to effectively implement it.
The report, based on a survey of 241 workers covered under the law, finds that FRERO provides critical protections to workers but needs to be better enforced. Low public awareness, lack of business compliance, and limited outreach and enforcement resources are reducing the law’s impact.
The first law of its kind, FRERO requires retail employers to provide workers at least 7 days’ notice of their schedules. It also requires them to compensate workers when shifts are changed or cancelled with insufficient notice (known as “predictability pay”) or when they are “on call” but ultimately not needed. Additionally, FRERO requires employers to offer available hours to current workers before hiring new staff.
FRERO has the potential to be a game-changer for many lower-income workers, helping them to plan their lives, arrange child care, pursue education, and manage finances. Indeed, surveyed workers said predictable schedules brought stability to their lives. However, more than a year into implementation, just 18 percent of workers were familiar with the law. Moreover, many workers said their employers weren’t complying with every rule. Among workers who experienced shifts changes—including cancelled or added shifts—with less than a week’s notice, just 30 percent received predictability pay. Furthermore, despite the fact that many workers expressed a desire for more hours of work, a majority said they weren’t offered additional hours before employers hired new staff.
Advocates and community-based organizations in San Francisco, including YWU, have been working diligently to spread the word about FRERO, despite limited resources. YWU is part of a collective of community-based organizations that partner with San Francisco’s enforcement agency to raise awareness about FRERO and other worker protections. These efforts have empowered workers to challenge unfair labor practices, including by filing claims with the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE), the agency enforcing the law. Yet as the report notes, more resources are needed as the collective undertakes outreach on a growing number of laws, including FRERO.
In addition to highlighting the need for resources to support community-agency partnerships, the report calls for increased, dedicated staffing for FRERO enforcement at OLSE and recommends that OLSE approach enforcement strategically. It should focus its efforts on high-violation areas and be proactive about identifying violations, as opposed to waiting for complaints.
A growing number of cities and states are considering—and passing—fair scheduling laws, which could help protect millions of workers from volatile scheduling practices that wreak havoc on families and create economic instability. The study released today points to the need to ensure adequate resources and staffing for enforcement of these laws in order to maximize their impact.
Jun 20, 2017 | PERMALINK »
Schedules that Work Act Would Establish Critical Worker Protections
As the Trump Administration tries to legitimize its draconian budget by pointing to the declining jobless rate and offering rosy economic projections, millions of workers in today’s labor force are struggling with a phenomenon that isn’t captured in traditional economic reports: volatile and unpredictable work schedules. Too many workers face inadequate notice of their schedules, last-minute schedule changes, on-call shifts, and wildly fluctuating hours per week. Today, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Schedules that Work Act (SWA), a federal proposal that would curb employers’ most egregious scheduling practices.
The SWA would provide workers employed by businesses in the retail, restaurant, and building-cleaning industries with 15 or more employees with at least two weeks of advance notice of their schedules and compensate workers when employers make last-minute schedule changes. These policies would help workers to better plan for child care, enroll in training or higher education classes, hold second jobs, or manage their budgets, among other critical aspects of life outside of work. The bill also compensates workers for on-call shifts, guaranteeing them a minimum of one hour of pay for times when they make themselves available but are not asked to report to work. Workers who are scheduled for split shifts (shifts with nonconsecutive hours) would also be compensated for their time. In addition, workers in all industries, employed at businesses with 15 or more employees, would have the right to request changes to their schedules without fear of retaliation. Employers would be required to accommodate requests by workers with caregiving obligations, serious personal medical needs, enrolled in training or higher education, or with second jobs, unless employers can demonstrate bona fide business reasons for not doing so.
The introduction of SWA comes as several major cities have passed similar legislation covering workers in their jurisdictions, including San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City, among others. Workers around the country are organizing to pass these important protections because, just as fair pay and access to paid leave are crucial basic labor standards, so too is a stable schedule and fair compensation when workers accommodate employers’ requests for their flexibility.
CLASP has numerous resources available to help explain the bill and scheduling policy more broadly.
- Federal Legislation to Address Volatile Job Schedules: An overview of scheduling challenges and the Schedules that Work Act.
- Job Schedules that Work for Businesses: The business case for fair scheduling legislation. See also employer testimonials.
- Volatile Job Schedules and Access to Public Benefits: An analysis of challenges workers with unstable schedules face in trying to access vital income and work supports. See also our fact sheet on Unemployment Insurance and volatile job schedules.
- Scrambling for Stability: Describing the challenges of job schedule volatility and child care.
- And many more resources on fair scheduling from CLASP and other organizations, as well as media coverage, proposed legislation, and enacted laws, available on CLASP’s National Repository of Resources on Job Scheduling Policy.
CLASP urges Congress to quickly pass the SWA, addressing a major gap in the current set of labor protections available to U.S. workers.
Jun 19, 2017 | PERMALINK »
Trump Order Weakens Apprenticeship System, Continues to Slash Funding for Workforce Training
On June 15, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) meant to “expand apprenticeships in America.” Under the current system, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and state apprenticeship agencies register all apprenticeship programs. However this EO proposes to decentralize the registration of apprenticeships to enable third parties—including a variety of corporate, nonprofit, trade groups, or other entities—to independently register or recognize apprenticeships. The implementation of this EO is likely to expand apprenticeship programs while potentially damaging the integrity and reputation of the current system and diminishing the value of this important earn-while-you-learn program to workers seeking to gain greater skills and improve their economic opportunities.
The current federal-state apprenticeship system in the United States was established through the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937. The primary purpose of the Act was to “promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices.” DOL regulations set the framework for registered apprenticeships and require equal employment opportunity standards. President Trump’s EO does not include any guarantee that the new “industry-recognized” apprenticeships will uphold the current job quality and equal opportunity standards for the program. These standards include delineating the type and structure of the training, form of supervision, terms of employment, and health and safety requirements. The EO also does not mention any requirements—as currently codified—that apprentices receive wage increases as they achieve milestones, such as the development of skills and competencies or time spent in on-the-job training. Furthermore, the EO does not specify that graduates of this new program will receive a nationally recognized credential that is portable among employers within an industry, a hallmark of the current Registered Apprenticeship system.
In addition, the EO fails to require any equal opportunity, affirmative action, or racial/gender fair hiring practices in the new “industry-recognized apprenticeships.” These Equal Employment Opportunity requirements in the current system for registered apprenticeships ensure that underrepresented groups can access and benefit from these critical job-training opportunities. In the absence of strong quality assurance design and monitoring, these new apprenticeships would allow federal funding to promote low-value training programs that are allowed to discriminate, provide few job protections, and offer little opportunity to advance from poverty-level wages.
Notably, the EO also directs federal agencies to make recommendations for eliminating workforce training under consideration in next year’s budget. Just as the proposed alternative to registered apprenticeship would weaken a proven workforce development strategy that enjoys bipartisan support, the Trump Administration continues to attack other key federal workforce development and job training investments. The president’s budget for Fiscal Year 2018 proposed cuts of almost 40 percent from job training programs provided through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA); proposed to reduce adult education by 16 percent ($96 million), even though two-thirds of adults with lower literacy and numeracy skills are already employed but face severe challenges in moving up at work due to their skill levels; and called for a 15 percent ($168 million) cut to Perkins career and technical education.
While the EO pays lip service to expanding access to and participation in apprenticeships among youth and students in secondary and postsecondary institutions, the administration’s budget would undermine these goals. The president’s budget proposes some of its deepest cuts for a program that provides crucial opportunities for youth to earn while they learn: the 20 percent dedicated WIOA Title I youth formula funding for work-based learning, which can include pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeships. Furthermore, WIOA’s provisions for subsidized transitional jobs for individuals with barriers to employment—and its enhanced reimbursement of up to 75 percent of wages for on-the-job training—offer valuable incentives for employers to participate in earn-and-learn activities, including pre-apprenticeships. These policies also encourage relationships between employers and the public workforce development system, leading to job training programs that are informed by industry needs and better prepare youth and adults with the right competencies for job opportunities.
The EO also promotes the development of apprenticeship programs at colleges and universities. By decentralizing the registration of apprenticeships, the Trump Administration would create a system for these new programs that resembles the accreditation system used in postsecondary education, where the Department of Education approves accreditors, who then in turn approve specific programs and institutions. This system, which both political parties agree is badly in need of reform, has allowed fraud to flourish. As of October 2016, the Obama Administration had approved 16,000 borrower “defense to repayment claims” (made by former students who reported being defrauded by colleges), and 13,000 “closed school claims” (for students who attended institutions that abruptly closed), for a cost to the taxpayer of $350 million. This is in addition to countless settlements and judgments that states attorneys general have received from schools that were accredited under the current model, yet that had made false claims about their programs’ performance to prospective students and committed other crimes.
Creating a mirror image of this accreditation system for registering “industry-recognized” apprenticeship could lead to similar waste, fraud, and abuse, allowing for the creation of sub-optimal education and training experiences that disproportionately draw in low-income students and students of color. This again raises significant questions and concerns that the new registration process suggested in the EO will weaken existing job quality and equal employment opportunity rules—and create a two-tiered system that will further undermine the current Registered Apprenticeship system.
Our workforce training system already struggles with having too few resources to meet the existing demand. It is possible to have both well-funded job training programs and quality assurance. Unfortunately, through its FY18 budget proposal and this new EO, the Trump Administration has yet to provide American workers with either.