Too Many People Working Too Many Hours Without Overtime Pay

August 28, 2014

Some years ago, I worked for McDonald’s Corporation. So I recall well the last time the Department of Labor updated its overtime rules. Let’s just say, McDonald’s and its retail-business lobbying partners got pretty much what they wanted — freedom to deny overtime pay to many more workers.

This is one, though not the only reason that average compensation in private-sector jobs like food preparation, sales and a category the Bureau of Labor Statistics labels “office and administrative support” has barely increased since 2001.

Retiring Senator Tom Harkin and eight Democratic colleagues have introduced a bill to restore overtime rights to about 35% of salaried workers — the main type that employers may legally require to work overtime without overtime pay.

But DOL doesn’t need new legislation to update the rules or to close what Harkin refers to as a “loophole” — the very thing McDonald’s and collaborators wanted.

President Obama has, in fact, directed Labor Secretary Tom Perez to “modernize and streamline” the rules. And Perez clearly has an overhaul in mind, though he’s not ready to say when we’ll see it.

This is one of those rulemakings that’s going to get lots of comments — and lots of behind-the-scenes input, as well as very public efforts to shape opinion. So I thought a brief summary of the current rule and what we may expect might be helpful

Overtime Basics

The Fair Labor Standards Act has always required employers to pay some, but not all of the workers on their payrolls one-and-a-half times their regular wage when they work more than 40 hours a week.

Those who don’t qualify are mostly salaried workers, though some who get paid on a fee basis may also be exempt. All are, by definition, “white collar” workers whose primary duties fall into one of five categories — executive, administrative, professional, computer and outside sales.

Deciding who’s exempt from the requirement involves a two-part test, except for the outside sales people. The first is a compensation threshold. Anyone below it qualifies for overtime pay.

The current threshold is $455 a week — slightly under the federal poverty line for a four-person family. At its peak, in 1970, it was $1,071, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

For a relative few, clearing the threshold is the end of it because their salaries put them into the “highly-compensated” category — currently a minimum of $100,000 a year.

For the majority, there’s a second test intended to identify employees whose primary duties involve management, supervision, other exercises of “discretion and independent judgment” and/or high-level professional expertise.

The rules specify the sorts of duties that meet the test for each of the categories. But here’s the kicker. The current rules, unlike their predecessors, don’t say how much time an employee must spend on them.

So, for example, an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant who spends virtually all her time working shoulder-to-shoulder with crew members could be exempt under the “executive” duties test so long as she created their work schedules and made recommendations — not necessarily decisions — about hiring and firing them.

What the Department of Labor May Do

Virtually everyone expects DOL to propose an increase in the salary threshold. It’s already got a range of recommendations to choose from — from $960 on the low end to $1,222 on the high end, among those I’ve seen.

The Senate Democrats’ bill would phase in an increase to $1,090 a week and then index it so it would automatically rise with consumer prices — a feature economists Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein earlier recommended to DOL.

Most speculators think DOL will reinstate the time allocation part of the duties test that its predecessor effectively eliminated in 2004 — or some variation thereof.

In fact, Perez has already said he wants to deal with the “loophole” that allows employers to exempt workers who spend virtually no time on the primary duties the current rule sketchily defines.

He may look to the Senate Democrats’ bill for a model. It would narrow the loophole by converting a former 50% “rule of thumb” to an absolute test. In other words, employees could be exempt only if they spend at least half their time on those primary duties.

One labor lawyer speculates that DOL may instead (or also) tighten up the definitions of the types of jobs that may be exempt.

Job Killer or Job Creator?

The National Retail Federation’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations says that the as-yet unseen proposal “if implemented, would have a significant job-killing effect.”

We hear somewhat similar, though subtler alarm bells from other spokespersons for affected businesses. The head of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, says that the prospective rule changes will “make employees more expensive.”

He draws a parallel to increasing the minimum wage, which the Chamber earlier claimed “destroys jobs.”

The opposite seems more likely. When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, during the depths of the Great Depression, it included the overtime requirement in part because employers would then find it cheaper to hire more workers than to pay those they had extra money to work extra hours.

That’s how labor economist Daniel Hamerish, among others, thinks the plan Obama sketched out will work. “I would argue it’s a job-creation program,” he told reporters at the Washington Post.

This and much more before we’ve seen anything approaching a formal proposal. So we’ve got a lot of backing-and-forthing to look forward to.

Meanwhile, Happy Labor Day to all of you who don’t have to work, with or without overtime pay.

 

 


More Earnings May Not Mean Less Hardship

August 20, 2014

Everyone with even a passing interest knows that the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds are far too low — in part because they’re based on a long-outdated spending pattern.

The Urban Institute’s Molly Scott has a more fundamental objection. “All our national poverty statistics,” she says, “reflect economic poverty.” In other words, they measure total household income — both earnings and payments from programs like unemployment insurance and SSI.

The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure also includes the value of some near-cash benefits, e.g., SNAP (food stamps), housing subsidies, home energy assistance.

But Scott has something quite different in mind than a better version of our poverty measure. “The problem,” she says, is that “the arbitrary poverty line is a bad measure of material poverty, the amount of hardship people experience meeting their basic needs.”

People both above and below the poverty line often struggle to get through the month. The only difference between them is “the mix of resources they use and the costs associated with work,” Scott says.

She gives us two hypothetical single mothers in the District of Columbia. Both have two school-age children. They live next door to each other, so the rent on their apartments is the same. They both have minimum wage jobs. The difference is that one works part time, the other 60 hours a week.

The part-time mom’s family gets a larger SNAP benefit because the household’s income is lower. She’s somehow managed to get a housing voucher — again because her income is extremely low.

At the same time, her transportation costs are lower, presumably because she doesn’t work every day. And she doesn’t have to pay for child care because she works only while her kids are in school.

The end result is that her gross income is much lower, but her family is actually somewhat better off. Probably still facing struggles, but not actually in the hole, like the family headed by the other mom, whose earnings put them nearly $10,000 above the federal poverty line.

The moral of this story is that policymakers — and others — who champion work requirements and other strategies “to get people to work more” are often actually looking for more ways to minimize spending on programs that help poor people make ends meet.

We may spend less, but achieve little or nothing to alleviate hardship, as Scott’s time-and-a-half working mom’s situation shows.

Scott’s conclusion is more cautionary than prescriptive. “[W]e need to make sure our policies and programs do more than swap out subsidies for low-income wages that won’t change people’s quality of life.”

She refers to “real ladders of opportunity and supports along the way.” Which is all very well and good, but we need to do something about those low-wage jobs as well — and about supports for people who, for various reasons, can’t climb a ladder into a genuine living wage job.

For our single mothers in the District, that would be a job paying $32.95 an hour, assuming full-time, year round work. This would give them an annual income nearly three and a half times higher than the poverty line for their families — and about $1,950 more than the median for all households in D.C.

We’ve got bills in Congress that would raise the floor the “ladders of opportunity” rest on. There’s the long-stalled minimum wage increase, of course, but also a pair of bills that would, among other things, ensure that workers don’t get shorted if they’re sent home early or required to work for awhile and then again later because their employers go in for “just-in-time” scheduling.

We’ve got bills that would guarantee most workers some time off with pay so they could stay home when they were sick or for other compelling reasons, e.g., childbirth, an ill family member who needs care.

We’ve even now got a bill that would help ensure that some of the 26 million or so workers employed by federal contractors get paid what they earn.

And, of course, President Obama has used his pen — or as some Republicans say, disregarded the Constitution — to both raise their wage floor and better protect them against wage theft, as well as some other prohibited labor practices.

But the mighty pen can’t boost federal funding for child care — the second largest item in the living wage budget for our D.C. single-mother families. It can’t do anything about the cost of housing, which, as you might expect, is the largest.

And it’s highly doubtful Congress will either — any more than it will raise the minimum wage or pass all the other bills that would somewhat improve the financial circumstances of low-wage workers.

What’s more frustrating, in a way, is that there is no silver bullet — or round of silver bullets — ready for policymakers to fire, if they choose. Material poverty seems to me even more complex than plain vanilla economic poverty.

Which isn’t an argument for doing nothing. There’s a lot that can be done, much of which we already know. It is an argument, however, as Scott implies, for rejecting out of hand solutions that rely solely on getting more people into the workforce.

 

 


Live the Wage Challenge Offers Bare Glimpse of Minimum Wage Workers’ Struggles

July 29, 2014

Not long after I started this blog, I raised questions about the value of the Food Stamp Challenge. This exercise, as you may know, calls on participants to feed themselves — and if they choose, their families — on the cash equivalent of the average SNAP (food stamp) benefit.

This week, we’re in the midst of a different sort of challenge. Elected officials, community leaders, congregations and the likes of thee and me are urged to live, for a week, on what a full-time minimum wage worker has to spend, less housing costs and taxes. (But see below.)

The minimum wage here is $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum that fully phased in five years ago. It remains the minimum in 28 states and the U.S. territories.

The challenge sponsors obviously want Congress to raise the wage, which it surely won’t unless and until Democrats gain a majority in the House and a larger majority in the Senate. Either that or a very different sort of Republican leadership to work with.

But this in itself doesn’t argue against the challenge. The aim, I take it, is to call attention in a new, social-media-oriented way to how far the minimum wage falls short of daily living costs.

We’re encouraged to tweet our experience and/or share it in other ways. Some of the handful of Democrats in Congress who said they’d participate have done just that. None of them, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, needs the experience to support the minimum wage increase that’s still stuck in the Senate.

Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio says, “[I]t’s important for those of us in leadership positions … to make sure … we really understand the deep challenges people face.”

But Live the Wage, as the week-long challenge is called, will do no such thing — something the guidance generally acknowledges, but understates.

The minimum wage budget for the week is $77. The organizers arrive at this by deducting average taxes that are roughly double the worker’s share of payroll taxes and $176.48, which is said to be the average for housing.

The average housing cost then is about $706 a month. I’m told this figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute and represents the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment.

It still seems to me very low — and way too low in many parts of the country. And of course, the apartment would be awfully crowded for a minimum wage worker with children.

More importantly, the $77 doesn’t exclude only housing and taxes. Challenge-takers don’t have to deal with any other “long-term and inflexible costs,” as the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s alert to the challenge reassuringly notes.

So loan payments, healthcare and childcare costs are all explicitly off-budget. So, for obvious reasons, are fees many low-income workers incur because they don’t have bank accounts — or in some cases do, but get paid with debit cards.

Bottom line, according to the guidance, is that the $77 must cover only meals, groceries, recreation and transportation. But recall that transportation doesn’t include car payments or insurance.

As with the Food Stamp Challenge, however, the most important limit is that it’s very brief — and can end whenever the going gets too tough.

Congressman Ryan has stocked up on diapers, but if the baby needs more, he’ll surely buy them — just as he snagged a pork chop after airport security officers took his jars of peanut butter and jelly during his Food Stamp Challenge.

That’s okay, the challenge guidance says. The point is “to give a glimpse of how little the minimum wage provides a working family in this country.”

But, it adds, no one is “expected or encouraged to default on any legal, financial, work or family obligations.” And surely no participant will.

So no one’s going to glimpse the decisions about which bills to pay and not, the acute pressures when the car breaks down or the kid gets sick — or the breadwinner, for that matter. No one’s going to feel despair when there’s not enough money for diapers.

If the Live the Wage challenge actually raises awareness among the friends, relatives, Twitter followers and the like that participants are to share their glimpses with, then perhaps it’s all to the good.

But I’ve got a hard time believing that anyone who’d support a minimum wage increase doesn’t already know that $7.25 an hour isn’t enough to live on, since a large majority of voters do.

And the glimpses aren’t going to make a whit of difference to Republican leaders in Congress.

If they had the slightest interest in what life below the poverty line is like, they’d be better off listening to what the real experts like Witnesses for Hunger Tianna Gaines Turner and Barbie Izquierdo have to say.


Less Known, But More Urgent Social Security Shortfall

July 17, 2014

I supposed you’ve read that the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money long about 2035. This date applies to the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund — that one that helps pay for workers’ retirement benefits and the benefits their dependent family members may ultimately receive.

The Trust Fund for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) is in far worse shape. The latest report from the trustees projects insolvency in 2016. Unless Congress does something PDQ, the so-called DI Trust Fund will be able to pay only about 80% of benefits.

They’re already far from generous — currently, on average, about $1,146 a month for disabled workers themselves or less than $1,000 if eligible spouses and children are included. Yet they’re a major source of income for most recipients and their families.

In 2010, for example, they accounted for more than half of total family income for 78.5% of beneficiaries. For nearly one in three, they were the only income source.

Benefits notwithstanding, nearly one in five lived in poverty. And well over a third (37.4%) were poor or near-poor, i.e., living below 150% of the federal poverty line.

These are hardly families who can afford a 20% cut.

Congress could avert it, at least temporarily, by shifting funds from the OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund, as it did in 1994. But this Congress isn’t that Congress.

Hence a panel discussion hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, whose parent organization concurrently released a fact-packed brief on SSDI.

The lead speaker, Senator Sherrod Brown, argued that Democrats should push for an expansion of Social Security, along the lines that he, among others, has proposed. The best defense is a good offense, as they say.

Unfortunately, as things stand now, SSDI needs a good defense too. Because it’s been subject to a barrage of negative media coverage.

Brown says that the attacks on SSDI are actually “backdoor attempts” to dismantle the whole social insurance system, which Republicans still want to privatize, i.e., convert into something like a compulsory IRA.

I’m not so sure. But some surely are casting aspersions on SSDI — and its beneficiaries. Though SSDI is basically an insurance policy that they and their employers have paid for, much of what we hear recalls attacks on safety net programs.

It’s rife with fraud. People perfectly able to work are gaming the system — in this case, with help from rapacious lawyers. Look at all those “squishy” diagnoses, e.g. some musculoskeletal disorder that’s allegedly excruciatingly painful.

The fuel for this fire, I think, is essentially the same as the source of the impending — but easily avertable — crisis.

Many more workers are now receiving SSDI than in the program’s earlier days — about 8.9 million, as compared to 1.4 million in 1970.

And we saw an uptick when the recession set in, though not nearly so large as the uptick in claims. (Notwithstanding alleged laxities, fewer than 40% of claims are ultimately approved.)

Social Security’s Chief Actuary, Stephen Goss, told the CAP Fund audience that the increase over time was predicted, even before the recession, because the largest drivers are demographic.

First, we’ve had a 43% increase in the working age population, i.e., adults between the ages of 20 and 64, since 1980.

Baby boomers are partly responsible for that, of course, And they’re now old enough to be at much higher risk for disabling conditions. A 50-year-old is twice as likely to be disabled as a 40-year-old and a 60-year-old twice as likely as a 50-year-old, according to another CAP brief.

At the same time, far more women are working — and for quite a long time, as they must to qualify for SSDI. So the pool of workers who’ve become eligible when disabilities make it impossible for them to continue doing the same kind of work — or any other kind they might qualify for — has increased for this reason as well.

Expansions in the potential pool tell only part of the story. Roughly half of the disabled workers receiving SSDI benefits have, at most, a high school education. They’re likely to have had jobs that required a lot of standing, walking, lifting and the like.

They’re not likely to have in-demand skills that would enable them to shift into more sedentary occupations — something the Social Security authorities would consider before approving their claims.

Policy changes also help explain why the SSDI rolls have grown. These include the phased-up increase in the age workers can qualify for full retirement benefits — at which point SSDI recipients are automatically shifted over to the OASI program.

Basically, we’ve still got baby boomers — and some younger disabled workers as well — who wouldn’t be receiving SSDI if Congress hadn’t raised their full retirement age to 67.

What this means is that the pressure on the SSDI program will eventually diminish because the boomers will all reach full retirement age.

This is why some recommend that a slightly larger percent of payroll taxes be allocated to SSDI. An initial shift from 1.8% to 2.8% of the total 12.4% collected, with smaller shifts thereafter would keep both trust funds wholly solvent until 2033, according to the Social Security actuaries.

Another option Goss has mentioned would be a small increase in the payroll tax. Or, he adds, Congress could just let the benefits cuts happen.

As if we don’t already have enough poor people in this country.

 


“Endless Weeks of False Hope and Promises,” As Jobless Workers Grow Desperate Without Unemployment Benefits

June 18, 2014

A fellow District of Columbia resident writes, “Where to start … the abrupt termination of emergency benefits, or the endless weeks of false hope and promises.

“I have no money to get to interviews…. I also have no money for phone, no money to even keep up my personal hygiene. For over 11 years, I was steadily employed at $40K-$55K, and now I’m soon to be homeless.”

This is one of well over 2,000 stories that struggling jobless workers have shared with the Center for Effective Government.

They speak of selling belongings, including a wedding ring. They speak of living without hot water, having electricity, phone service and/or internet connections cut off — of actually becoming homeless.

And they speak of ongoing, frustrating efforts to find employment — any job at all, some say, though like my fellow District resident, many used to earn a comfortable living.

Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner has run the clock out on the stop-gap bill to renew Emergency Unemployment Compensation that the Senate passed in early April.

The bill covered five months of EUC benefits, back-dated to when they expired at the end of last year. So the benefits it provided would have ended more than three weeks ago.

Supporters had hoped that the bill would buy time for negotiations on a further extension. Surely justified. Notwithstanding newsworthy job growth, there are still nearly 3.4 million people who’ve been job-seeking for more than 27 weeks.

Only two state unemployment insurance programs provide benefits for this long — and none for much longer.

So at this point, more than 3 million have lost their unemployment benefits since EUC expired, as the counter House Ways and Means Democrats have posted. Look at the numbers roll — about one more worker cut off every 8 seconds, 72,000 or so a week.

Well, I don’t suppose I need to convince you of the mounting crisis — not only for jobless workers themselves, but for their families.

The question is, what will convince Speaker Boehner to let the House vote on an EUC bill? Not apparently some bipartisan job-creating measures to go with it, since he shrugged off the Secretary of Labor’s invitation to discuss what those might be.

The campaign I wrote about earlier hasn’t let up. We’ve been tweeting House Republicans weekly, urging them to tell their leader it’s time — past time actually — for a vote.

Not only the Center for Effective Government, but House Ways and Means Democrats have been collecting stories — many begging Congress for help.

Last Wednesday marked a new phase in the campaign — the first of what will be seven weekly events on the grassy triangle in front of the House side of the Capitol.

Witness Wednesdays they’re called because they center on readings of stories collected — all participants bearing witness to the suffering of our fellow Americans, who, as one of them says, are “swimming as hard as … [they] can, yet … still drowning.”

I joined the crowd for the first event. It was a heart-wrenching — and at the same time, rousing — experience, as you can see.

Thankfully, the organizers and the many other groups supporting the cause aren’t counting on touching Boehner’s heart — or if you prefer, pricking his conscience. Nor, I think, are they counting on pressure from his colleagues to get a standalone bill on the floor.

We perhaps see a glimpse of the Democrats’ strategy in a recent donnybrook in the Senate. Senator Jack Reed, who’d partnered with Senator Dean Heller to negotiate the five-month EUC bill, planned to attach a year-long renewal to the bill extending expiring tax breaks.

Republicans blocked a substantive vote on the bill because House Majority Leader Harry Reid wouldn’t allow them to add amendments.

But the tax extender bill is one of those so-called must-pass pieces of legislation. And there are others — a bill of some sort to avert a government shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, for example, and another to keep funds flowing to road and public transit projects.

So we may see an EUC extension after all. Senators Reed and Heller are reportedly working on a new bill — this time, prospective only. No compensation for benefits already lost, though that might avert some further emergencies.

The challenge again is to find an offset that would satisfy most Democrats and enough Republicans to get the bill — or amendment — passed.

Because we know that Senate Republicans, as well as their House counterparts, will insist the benefits be fully paid for though they’re willing enough to extend tax breaks with no offset whatever.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking — and the number of jobless workers with no source of cash income rising. Members of Congress will go home in about six weeks and stay there until after Labor Day.

So even if EUC is ultimately resurrected, jobless workers who’ve already said they’re facing foreclosure or eviction may be homeless. And who knows how many more will find their job searches frustrated because they can’t afford gas or public transportation to get to interviews?

This is all so pathetically unnecessary. No wonder that two-thirds of American voters have a higher opinion of lice than of Congress.


Welfare Spending Up? Not So, Another Expert Says.

June 2, 2014

The welfare spending study I recently wrote about makes two main points. Spending on “social safety net” programs has increased. And it’s shifted from the neediest toward more “deserving” working families.

Policy analyst Shawn Fremstad says the first point is “overstated.” He also argues that it’s too narrow because it ignores the erosion of core unemployment programs that aren’t means-tested, i.e., limited to people below a certain income level.

He demonstrates the former by measuring spending on what he calls income security programs as a percent of GDP, i.e. the value of all the goods and services our economy produces, rather than on a per-person basis, as the study’s author, Professor Robert Moffitt, did.

Looked at this way, spending on what are what are mostly means-tested programs has risen and fallen between the mid-1970s and 2007, in synch with recessions and labor market recoveries.

Spending during recessions has trended down. And spending in 2007 — our latest relatively low-unemployment year — is a small fraction of a percent higher than it was in 1979.

What may seem like a technical debate on how to measure safety net spending really isn’t. Because Fremstad aims in part to show that our so-called welfare state has become “less generous.”

Not only that. Spending on a broader range of employment-related programs, i.e., education, training, employment and social services, is lower, as a percent of GDP, than it was in the mid-1970s. “[T]he story is more about retrenchment than expansion,” Fremstad says.

And not only that. The skewing upward is actually much more pronounced than Moffitt’s analysis finds because we have a whole lot of spending through the individual income tax code. And most of the costliest deductions, exclusions and the like disproportionately benefit the top fifth on the income scale.

Even the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, Fremstad suggests, aren’t straightforward benefits for lower-income workers because they “subsidize poorly compensated employment.”

In other words, they enable employers to get away with paying less than they could if the tax credits didn’t supplement their workers’ incomes. The EITC may actually drive wages down, according to research by a prominent labor economist.

Underlying all this is a point Fremstad doesn’t specifically state in his post, but indicated in one of his tweets as @inclusionist: Wages and benefits for working families with children hardly show we view them as deserving.

Though these are beyond the scope of a federal spending analysis, they’re federal policy issues nonetheless.

Not much hope on the horizon for improvements. We seemingly can’t even get a renewal of federal unemployment benefits, let alone a minimum wage increase or any sort of paid leave mandate.

But we blog on.


Tough Life for Low-Wage Working Mothers

May 11, 2014

A new brief from the National Women’s Law Center tells us what we already knew, but not in such detail. Tough as it is to be a working mother with young children, it’s ever so much tougher if you’re in a low-wage job.

About 2.1 million — nearly one in five — mothers with children no older than three have jobs that typically pay, at most, $10.10 an hour, i.e., what the minimum wage bill stalled in Congress would require nationwide.

They’re the workers who care for our children and our elderly and/or disabled family members, the workers who clean our houses, prepare and serve our food when we go out to eat, ring up our purchases at the store and pack the products we’re buying.

More than half — 53% — are single or, for other reasons, raising their children without a husband in the house. Presumably many of them are the sole breadwinners, relying on their own earnings and perhaps some safety net benefits to support themselves and at least one child.

Here are some of the other things we learn about the group as a whole.

Just over half the mothers work full time. Most of the rest — 35.7% — work part time for “non-economic reasons.” These can include an inability to afford what child care would cost if they had to rely on it for more than eight hours a day, five days a week.

The mothers are disproportionately black or Hispanic — 50.3% of the group as a whole. By contrast, only 26.6% of all workers belong to these race/ethnicity groups.

The largest portion of the mothers — 42% — have only a high school diploma or the equivalent. Somewhat under than 17% have less formal education. But that leaves 41.4% who have at least some college education and still work in low-wage jobs.

This may be, to some extent, because low-wage industries, e.g., food service and administrative support, have more than recovered from job losses due to the recession, while there’s still a deficit of more than 1.9 million jobs in mid-wage and high-wage industries.

Similarly, 60% of women’s job gains during the first four years after the recession officially ended are of the low-wage sort. And to make matters worse, the real dollar value of wages in the largest low-wage occupations has dropped.

So what could we give these low-wage working moms for Mother’s Day? On the policy front, NWLC has some answers. They’d benefit all lower-income families with children — and some of them childless workers as well.

Top of the list, as you might expect, are increases in both the regular minimum wage and the tip credit wage, i.e., the minimum cash wage employers must pay workers who regularly receive tips.

Two related policies would require employers to provide some specified amount of paid leave so that workers could afford to take time off when they were sick or needed to care for a sick family member. Other family-related reasons would also qualify, e.g., pregnancy and childbirth.

As of last year, only 30% of low-wage workers in non-government jobs could take even a day off with pay when they were sick. And only 5% had any paid family leave benefit. These workers, needless to say, can least afford a pay loss. And they’re highly vulnerable to a job loss if they must take time off anyway.

On related note, NWLC calls for stronger enforcement of stronger legal protections against discrimination based on pregnancy and caregiver responsibilities.

The latter is a growing problem and not expressly prohibited by federal law, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute. Nor broadly by any state, except the (non-state) District of Columbia.

The NWLC agenda would also give workers more control over their work schedules, i.e., some say in when they have to show up and when they can leave. And the schedules wouldn’t be so unpredictable from week to week or subject to daily cutbacks and/or required overtime. Both, as I’ve written before, pose a host of problems for low-wage workers.

Child care would be less problematic. There’d be more of it affordable for low-wage workers — both through subsidies to help pay for care by private-sector providers and through expanded pre-K programs.

As things stand now, our low-wage mothers in 19 states would have to pay, on average, at least half their earnings to have their infants or toddlers cared for in a center — assuming they worked full time, year round and had to cover the full cost.

Both child care and early childhood ed programs would be “high-quality” — an iffy matter now, as recent reviews of state licensing rules for childcare centers and state-funded preschool programs indicate.

And policies for both would “respond to families’ diverse circumstances,” which, I suppose, means, among other things, ensuring they’re available when working families need them.

The last item on the NWLC agenda calls for stronger safety net supports, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP (food stamp) benefits — the latter twice-cut in the past year.

To all this, I’ll add one more Mother’s Day gift for the low-wage single moms. A halt to blaming them for all the ills that beset their children because our public policies leave them in poverty — or at best, on the verge.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 163 other followers