DENVER – La industria restaurantera es uno de los sectores de crecimiento más rápido de la economía de los Estados Unidos -empleando a más de 10 millones de trabajadores en todo el país. Un nuevo reporte titulado “Tipped Over the Edge” (“Inclinados Sobre el Borde”) no solo encuentra que el crecimiento no incluye los empleos que pagan más y que dan beneficios si no que también parte del problema es que aún se paga el salario debajo del mínimo federal.

Se le permite a los empleadores pagar a sus trabajadores que reciben propinas un salario de $2.13 la hora -porque se asume que la diferencia se compensa a través de las propinas. Sierra Trujillo ha trabajado en restaurantes ganando un salario debajo del mínimo desde su adolescencia, el cual en Colorado es más alto que el mandato federal de salario debajo del mínimo.

“Nunca sabes, digo el negocio puede estar lento durante varios meses. Por ejemplo enero o febrero o después de las fiestas o antes de la temporada de impuesto -los restaurantes no tienen tanto negocio, y entonces no gano el dinero que acostumbro.”

El reporte también demostró que el 90 por ciento de trabajadores de restaurantes no tienen cobertura médica ni tampoco reciben días pagados por enfermedad. Trujillo dice que esa es su situación -cuando se enferma, tiene que decidir entre trabajar para que le paguen o quedarse en casa para recuperarse.

“Es una de esas situaciones como cuando no pude trabajar la semana pasada y tuve que perder días de trabajo y paga por estar enferma.”

El reporte recomienda un estándar nacional que permitiría que los trabajadores obtengan de siete a nueve días pagados por enfermedad al año, los cuales podrían ser usados cuando se enferman, para ir al médico o para cuidar de un familiar enfermo.

También se demostró a través del reporte que la típica mujer que trabaja de tiempo completo todo el año gana solo el 79 por ciento que lo que ganan los hombres con el mismo trabajo. Este reporte fue creado por una coalición de docenas de grupos bajo el nombre Restaurant Opportunities Center United, incluyendo a la organización 9a5 La Asociación de Mujeres que Trabajan. Esta coalición recomienda incrementar el salario debajo del mínimo federal a $5.08 la hora. Pero grupos a favor de negocios como la Cámara de Comercio de los Estados Unidos y la Federación Nacional de Negocios Independientes han opuesto incrementar la cifra, argumentando que lastima a los negocios y limita la creación de empleos.

El reporte completo se encuentra visitando rocunited.org.


get more stories like this via email

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.

David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.

"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.

The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.

Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.

"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.

Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.

Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.

"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.

Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.

Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.

"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.

Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.


get more stories like this via email

Washington joins a handful of states to do away with mandatory meetings for employees on political or religious matters.

Sometimes known as captive audience meetings, the gatherings were seen as a way for employers to give their opinions on subjects like unionization, and held potential consequences for employees who didn't attend. Lawmakers passed a bill this session allowing workers to skip the meetings without repercussions.

Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, a sponsor of the bill, said we live in a divided society where emotions run high on political topics.

"This bill simply protects employees to have a real choice on whether or not to attend a meeting called by their boss to be told about some political or religious issue," Keiser explained.

Keiser pointed out the legislation is nonpartisan. For instance, employers could not force employees to attend anti-union meetings, but also could not force them to attend a meeting about the importance of reproductive rights. The bill takes effect June 6.

Keiser noted the bill likely got across the finish line this session because of the uptick in union organizing and support for labor. She added there are widely known stories of Starbucks managers, for example, requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings while the employees organized the workplace.

"Employees have been forced to attend meetings to listen to the boss or the employer basically tell them why they shouldn't join a union," Keiser observed.

Washington is the sixth state to pass a law prohibiting attendance at captive audience meetings. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota and New York have passed similar laws in recent years. Oregon passed a law allowing workers to skip such meetings without repercussions in 2010.


get more stories like this via email