NCL welcomes bill to curb child labor and other worker abuses

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

July 31, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Consumers League (NCL) applauds the July 26th introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives to increase fines for labor violations for workers, including child laborers and wage theft victims. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), the ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, introduced the Labor Enforcement to Securely (LET’S) Protect Workers Act, H.R. 9137, which currently has 14 cosponsors.

“‘The LET’S Protect Workers Act’ would deal a blow to unscrupulous employers who exploit workers,” said Sally Greenberg, chief executive officer of NCL. “This much-needed, comprehensive bill will help protect child workers, farmworkers, miners, and others at risk by increasing civil monetary penalties for labor abuses and unfair labor practices. NCL and the Child Labor Coalition, which NCL chairs, heartily endorse the legislation.”

“Unfortunately, shortcomings in our labor laws enable unethical employers to exploit workers, endanger children, and suppress the right to organize—with little accountability.” said Rep. Scott. “That’s why I’m proud to introduce the ‘LET’S Protect Workers Act,’ which will hold bad actors accountable and strengthen penalties for labor law violations. This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers,” said Rep. Scott.

The ‘LET’S Protect Workers Act,’ says Rep. Scott, will:

  • Increase civil penalties for violations of child labor, minimum wage and overtime, worker health and safety, and farmworker protection standards.
  • Improve mine safety and reliable funding of black lung benefits through new and increased civil monetary penalties and the option to shut down scofflaw operators.
  • Set new penalties for retaliation against workers who exercise their family and medical leave rights.
  • Strengthen enforcement of mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans.
  • Close a loophole that allows employers to escape penalties for failing to keep records of workplace injuries if OSHA does not detect the violation within six months.
  • Create new penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, consistent with the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

“The ‘LET’S Protect Workers Act’ will increase maximum fines for child labor violations by a factor of ten—from the current $15,000 to a maximum of $150,000,” said Reid Maki, NCL’s director of Child Labor Advocacy. “This bill is a much-needed boost to the current law and will help to deter a range of troubling labor violations.”

###

 About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Guest blog: NCL encourages FTC to propose new rule regarding protections for franchisees in response to exclusion from the agency’s non-compete covenants

/in , /by

By Tesa Hargis, NCL summer intern

On April 24, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its final rule on non-compete covenants (the “Rule”).

Fifteen months earlier, on January 19, 2023, the FTC posted the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Non-Compete Clause Rule. The public comments on the proposed rule sought to answer the question of “whether the proposed rule should also apply to noncompete clauses between franchisors and franchisees.”

The Non-Compete Clause Rule comment period closed on April 19, 2023, after being extended from the original deadline of March 20, 2023. The FTC received 26,813 comments and posted 20,697 comments to the rulemaking docket.

A year after the notice and comment period for the Non-Compete Clause Rule lapsed, the FTC’s Final Non-Compete Rule was issued. The Rule bans non-compete agreements at the national level except for those between franchisors and franchisees. The Rule does, however, apply to non-competes between the employees of a franchisee.

Within the supplemental information of the Rule, the FTC explained that franchisees were excluded from the definition of “worker” within the rule because “the relationship between a franchisor and franchisee may be more analogous to the relationship between two businesses than the relationship between an employer and a worker.” However, many comments argued that franchisor-franchisee relationships are similar to employer-employee relationships because, like employees, franchisees generally lack bargaining power, and their interests are not generally protected “because franchisors generally do not entrust franchisees with trade secrets or details about their broader commercial strategy.”

The final rule ultimately does not apply to franchisor-franchisee non-competes, and those covenants remain subject to State common law and Federal and State antitrust laws.

Franchisor business practices and franchise agreements

Parallel to the comment period for the Non-Compete Clause Rule, in March of 2023, the FTC announced a separate request for public comment on franchisor business practices and franchise agreements in an effort to inform policy and enforcement efforts by hearing from a broad range of stakeholders and ensure a fair marketplace and halt unfair and deceptive franchise practices.

The comment period for the Franchise Agreements and Franchisor Business Practices closed on June 8, 2023, after being extended from the original deadline of May 9, 2023, with 5,291 comments received and 2,216 posted. A rule on Franchise Agreements and Franchisor Business Practices has yet to be proposed in response to the comment period which closed thirteen months ago.

Stakeholder comments

Franchisees such as William Kyle, who owns 14 McDonald’s franchises, have highlighted the restrictive nature of non-compete clauses in their agreements. Kyle describes his situation as a “take it or leave it” scenario, with a non-negotiable contract that includes an 18-month non-compete clause preventing him from starting a similar business within a ten-mile radius after his franchise term ends. This severely limits his ability to use his industry experience to support his family if McDonald’s denies him a contract renewal.

Similarly, Melissa Catalano, a Wellbiz Brands franchisee for over ten years, has expressed concerns about being trapped by franchisors who exploit their position. She detailed issues such as arbitrary fees, forced purchases of overpriced supplies, and restrictive policies that leave franchisees financially vulnerable and powerless.

Mark Liston, with over 40 years in the franchise sector, argues that the franchise model provides significant opportunities for business owners and should not be subjected to broad, sweeping regulations. He emphasizes that strong franchisor-franchisee relationships are mutually beneficial and that the franchise model has helped many achieve the American dream.

FTC developments

In response to the March 2023 request for public comment on franchisor business practices, the FTC released several significant statements on July 12, 2024. These include a Policy Statement asserting that certain contract provisions, such as non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses, are unlawful if they restrict franchisees’ communications with regulators. Additionally, the FTC issued Staff Guidance emphasizing that any new or increased fees not disclosed in the Franchise Disclosure Documents are likely violations of the FTC Act. The FTC also published an Issue Spotlight highlighting the top complaints from franchisees, including issues like unilateral changes to operating manuals and high default rates on SBA loans. Lastly, the FTC reopened the comment period until October 10, 2024, reflecting an ongoing commitment to addressing franchisee concerns.

Furthermore, on July 17, 2024, the FTC published an analysis detailing its stance against undisclosed “junk fees” imposed by franchisors, stating that such practices violate the Franchise Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act.  This analysis explicitly targets undisclosed fees related to marketing, training, property improvement, and other franchisor-mandated products or services. While this is a step in the right direction, the ongoing process must ensure these guidelines are actionable and that franchisors do not continue to use their size and influence to bully franchise owners.

NCL’s position

NCL strongly urges the FTC to revise its current approach by proposing new rules to better protect franchisees. The exclusion of franchisor-franchisee agreements from the Non-Compete Rule, coupled with the delay in addressing franchisor business practices, has left significant gaps in protection for franchisees. The prolonged inaction following the comment period undermines the urgency to tackle pervasive and often exploitative practices in the franchising industry.

The FTC’s recent developments, including the stance against undisclosed “junk fees” and other contract provisions that restrict franchisees, are commendable but only a starting point. NCL calls for the FTC to prioritize robust and actionable regulations that ensure fair treatment of franchisees, promote transparency, and foster a competitive marketplace. It is crucial that the FTC heeds the thousands of stakeholder comments and implements comprehensive protections to address the power imbalances and unfair practices currently faced by franchisees.

NCL recently wrote a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan on this issue, in which we highlighted that some of the largest franchisors control their franchisees to such an extent that they are effectively operating as the owners and operators of these individual locations while leveraging the legal benefits of being a franchisor. This creates a system where they enjoy the benefits of ownership without any of the risks – which they transfer to their franchisees. We are concerned that private equity firms take advantage of U.S. franchise law, and their heavy-handed control, if left unchecked, threatens to destroy the franchise model and even ruin the American Dream for so many hardworking franchisees.

Sources

Press Release

Non-Compete Clause Rule

Non-Compete Clause Rule Rulemaking Docket

Solicitation for Public Comments on Provisions of Franchise Agreements and Franchisor Business Practices

Solicitation for Public Comments on Provisions of Franchise Agreements and Franchisor Business Practices Rulemaking Docket

Financial Times

TroutmanPepper 

The National Law Review

Melissa Catalano Document (FTC-2023-0026-0001)

William Kyle (FTC-2023-0026-0001)

Mark Liston Document (FTC-2023-0026-0001)

The National Law Review: FTC Issues Statements Signaling Major Changes to its Oversight of Franchise Relationships and Franchise Disclosure Requirements

Lathrop GPM: FTC Takes Action Impacting the Franchise Relationship

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

Guest blog: My background in farmwork

/in , , , , /by

By Luz Vazquez Hernandez, NCL Child Labor Coalition Summer Intern

Coming from a background of farmwork, I know the struggle against heat. At 14 years old, I began picking blueberries in Michigan during the summer, and from there on I learned to pick a variety of crops all over Michigan and my home base in Florida. I spent my weekends and any school days off – including summers – picking strawberries, squash, pickles, peppers, and jalapeños.

I learned to push my body and to handle extreme weather conditions. I suffered pains and aches that my parents felt every day. Complaining to my parents was not an option, and my body adapted.

Working in the fields during intense heat were the worst moments. Covered in layers from head to toe, with pants, a long-sleeve shirt, a hoodie, and a bandana was my daily attire. Covering most of my face, the bandana made it hard for me to breathe in extreme heat; at times, I felt my body, head, and eyes just shutting off. I felt I could not go any longer, but seeing my parents endure the heat and hold it in, I tried to do the same and distract myself from my thoughts.

It was common to see workers faint, as taking breaks in the shade and drinking water were not enough. I witnessed my mom, dad, and brother faint more than twice in 100-plus-degree weather, which always made me scared; somehow, we all managed to continue our 12 to 13-hour shifts because our paycheck depended on how many crops we picked.

We could not afford to take long lunch breaks – we often had a bite or two of lunch and a Gatorade, and then immediately went back into the fields. Before I turned 19, I stopped working as a harvester because I knew that I had greater opportunities than my parents and that farmwork was not the only job I could have.  I have made it a goal of mine to share my story and continue my education so that I can help create the changes that my community needs.

I am now a rising senior at Michigan State University, and I am interning with the National Consumers League (NCL) and the Child Labor Coalition (CLC). I am grateful because I get to work closely on policies affecting my community and interests. However, knowing that I get to work inside an office with air-conditioning makes me feel guilty because I know that my parents and younger siblings are in Michigan picking crops in this summer heat, sweating, thirsty, and hoping for a cloud to bring shade to them.

As a nation, the United States needs to take immediate action to protect farmworkers from extreme heat exposure. As temperatures rise, farmworkers’ suffering is increasing. Farmworkers feed America and deserve protection.

A current legislative effort addressing heat protection is the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act, which sets standards needed to protect workers from heat, such as having drinking water accessible, requiring rest breaks, and providing access to shade. The bill would require employers to educate and train workers to recognize and prevent heat illness and mandate emergency protocols.

In a separate initiative, the Biden administration recently proposed a set of regulations to protect workers in extreme heat. The rules focus on including heat safety regulations at work, and they direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to help establish a nationwide protection standard. These two initiatives are vital if we want to protect farmworkers from heat illness.

After years of seeing my parents toil in the fields and working beside them, I feel the need to be an advocate for my community. Interning with the NCL and CLC, I have become acquainted with numerous congressional bills, but the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act is one that would affect me and fellow farmworkers. The work of the National Consumers League and Child Labor Coalition and groups like the National Heat Network, organized by Public Citizen, gives me hope that soon farmworkers and other outdoor workers who work in extreme heat will have safer working conditions.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

PBMs are driving the increase in out-of-pocket healthcare costs for consumers, says NCL

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

July 23, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Consumers League (NCL) today submitted a letter to both the Republican and Democratic chairs of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability expressing concerns about pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) driving the increase in out-of-pocket healthcare costs for American consumers. The letter was submitted just as the committee was conducting a hearing with top executives from Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, and Optum Rx.

The following statement is attributable to NCL’s Chief Executive Officer Sally Greenberg:

“We are concerned that these anti-consumer practices are putting the profits of insurance companies and their PBMs before patients, local pharmacies, employers, and state governments. Congress has an opportunity to review these corporate practices and work to ensure a reduced market power, thus minimizing the incentives for PBMs to steer patients towards higher-priced medicines, claim higher and higher rebates to fatten their bottom line, and ultimately driving independent pharmacies out of business.”

The full letter can be accessed here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Washington Nationals red cap for News and Highlights Featured Content - Copy (1)

NCL sues Washington Nationals over junk fees not disclosed in advertised prices

/in , , , , , , , , /by

July 17, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Lisa McDonald, lisam@nclnet.org, 202-207-2829

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the National Consumers League (NCL) announced that it has sued the Washington Nationals on behalf of a class of affected consumers in the District of Columbia and beyond for violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act in connection with Nationals’ single-game ticket sales practices.

Consumers are entitled to truthful information from merchants, including information about prices. According to NCL’s complaint, the Nationals advertised deceptively low prices for their tickets by failing to disclose mandatory “ticket processing” fees that could increase ticket prices by more than 25%. The complaint explains that tickets the Nationals advertised on their website as “starting at $9” actually cost $11.25 once the mandatory “ticket processing fee” was added, and that in reality, the Nationals never intended to sell those tickets “starting at $9” on their official website.

Concealing fees of this sort – commonly known as “junk fees” – until late in the transaction is a misleading practice known as “drip pricing,” which frustrates and harms consumers, according to the complaint.

NCL’s complaint alleges that this has been a practice for the Nationals for years, and that these ticketing practices are misleading – and illegal under D.C. law. The D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq., provides a robust set of protections for consumers.  Among other things, it protects the basic right not to be misled about the price of goods and services being offered for sale.

“It’s disappointing that ticket sellers like the Nationals hide the real price of their tickets from consumers until so late in the process,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s chief executive officer. “The junk fees attached to the Nationals’ tickets are wrong, and they’re illegal.  We hope this lawsuit brings some much-needed reforms to the ticketing industry to help protect consumers from these abusive practices.”

NCL’s lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of the class of consumers as well as other relief.

Read the full complaint here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Chaotic evacuation of American Airlines Flight 2045 shows urgent need for updated evacuation standards and minimum seat sizes

/in , , , , , , /by

July 17, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The evacuation of American Airlines Flight 2045 on July 12 at the San Francisco International Airport appears to have taken significantly longer to complete than the federal standard of 90 seconds. While only minor injuries have been reported, delays in the evacuation created an unacceptable risk of major injuries or death for the passengers and crew on board.

Such chaotic scenes again highlight the urgent need for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to update its emergency evacuation standards to reflect the modern flying environment.

The lengthy American Airlines evacuation was not an anomaly; evacuations over the past decade have consistently exceeded the FAA’s 90-second standard. Evacuation standards were last updated in 2005 and over the intervening 19 years, the in-cabin environment has evolved substantially. Despite these changes, the FAA has rejected or failed to act on 27 recommendations from the FAA Emergency Evacuation Standards Advisory Rulemaking Committee or those of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s own Inspector General. 

As a result, the American Economic Liberties Project, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, FlyersRights, the National Consumers League, Travelers United, and U.S. PIRG are calling on the FAA to urgently address its antiquated safety regulations by:

Updating outdated evacuation standards. Current standards do not reflect the modern cabin environment and do not account for passengers of all ages and body types, record-high passenger load factors, the proliferation of personal electronic devices, the increased amount of carry-on baggage, or the cramped seating conditions of modern aircraft.

Establishing minimum passenger seat sizes. Despite receiving two mandates from Congress and over 26,100 public comments on the issue, the FAA still has not set minimum dimensions for airplane seats. The consistent shrinking of passenger seating has allowed carriers to increase the number of passengers in the aircraft without also increasing the number of exits. Additionally, the cramped seating poses a physical impediment to quick evacuation of the aircraft. 

“The FAA has the ability to reduce the risk of the chaos like what unfolded on Flight 2045,” said John Breyault, National Consumers League vice president of Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud. “Passenger safety and a profitable airline industry are not mutually exclusive. For too long, however, the agency has allowed the airline industry’s concerns about its bottom line to stand in the way of creating standards that lead to a safer cabin environment. That has to stop.”

“The FAA is long overdue in updating its emergency evacuation training and procedures,” said William J. McGee, senior fellow for Aviation & Travel at American Economic Liberties Project. “In recent years we’ve gotten very lucky, as numerous potentially deadly evacuations far exceeded the FAA’s own 90-second timeline. It’s time to rely on proven standards rather than luck.”

“This serves as another example of why the FAA must look at this issue with the importance it deserves,” said Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director, U.S. PIRG. “The recent evacuation tests relied on ‘able-bodied adult subjects under 60,’ the FAA acknowledged in 2022. We all know this doesn’t reflect modern travel — planes filled with children, senior citizens, people with disabilities and people who are heavy. This issue must be prioritized before we have a tragedy.”

“Emergency landings and emergency evacuations occur several hundred times annually often due to smoke or fire in the cabin. The latest incident showed confusion and panic after a fire erupted in the rear of the plane,” said FlyersRights President Paul Hudson. “Needed improvements were recommended unanimously by the FAA Emergency Evacuation Advisory Rulemaking Committee in 2020. But it is up to FAA Administrator Whitaker to take action, without further delay.”

“This terrifying event is a stark reminder to the FAA to move forward with updated, safer evacuation standards and seating dimensions that reflect current air travel conditions,” said Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at Consumer Federation of America. “We urge the FAA to take the opportunity provided by Congress in the Reauthorization Act to publicly commit to addressing these issues.”

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Understanding the transformative potential of the Juneteenth holiday

/in , /by

By Sally Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer, NCL

As I sat in my home study and contemplated the meaning of the Juneteenth holiday last month – with all the division in the country, with states banning discussions about racial and other forms of discrimination in schools, 8 States Debat[ing] Bills to Restrict How Teachers Discuss Racism, Sexism, and a Supreme Court decision banning schools from considering affirmative action in admissions – I could be just sad. But, unexpectedly, the Washington Post brought some encouraging news.

More on that in a minute.

First some definitions: Juneteenth is a federal holiday that marks the day when enslaved people in Galveston, TX were informed by a Union general  two years after the Emancipation Proclamation that they were free. What is Juneteenth? Learn the history behind the federal holiday’s origins and name. Their enslavers had not bother to tell them.

So, Juneteenth gives Americans the opportunity to think, talk, discuss, and learn about the scourge of slavery in the United States and how it finally ended. Juneteenth is also an opportunity to talk about history and what followed emancipation; the passage of Jim Crow laws intended to keep emancipated slaves in a state of poverty, and included rampages against Black communities in many cities throughout the nation, most notoriously in Tulsa, OK where the  1921 Tulsa Race Massacre took place and where thousands of lynchings of African Americans and others, including Native Americans. And in 1913, Frank Leo, a Jew who was tried and pardoned, was hanged by an anti-Semitic lynch mob in Georgia. In fact, no ethnic group was immune from these attacks,  including the Irish and Italian Irish and Italian neighborhoods.

Shouldn’t we be teaching our kids about these events?

Sadly, there is a backlash from conservatives across America to “talk” about our history, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s decision noted above. That recent decision also unleashed attacks on corporate efforts at diversity.

But a new survey in published in the Washington Post (WAPO) today buoyed me. Yes, there has been backlash against teaching American history; this includes bans on discussing the history of slavery, but also a long history of discrimination against Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Native, and LGBT Americans citizens throughout our nation’s existence.

However, the WAPO poll suggests the public supports teaching about these issues. The April 2024 survey found that most Americans – 61 percent overall – thinks that having Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs in U.S. companies is a good thing.

Support for programs to increase racial diversity in the workplace remained steady over the past year, despite the attacks from conservatives. Last year, 62 percent of Americans said efforts to increase racial diversity in workplaces were a good thing, according to a Post-Ipsos poll. Most popular were mentorship opportunities for underrepresented groups with 75 percent of Americans supporting.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has banned DEI in his state, including at public colleges and universities. America First Legal, a group backed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed legal complaints over diversity practices at scores of companies, including United Airlines, Kellogg’s, Nike, and organizations such as the FBI, National Football League, and Major League Baseball.

But the WAPO poll also found that more than 8 in 10 Americans overall said they believe the country has made progress on that front since the 1950s, but perceived progress differs by racial and ethnic groups.

The Post article didn’t take sides or draw any broad conclusions but what this polling says to me is that there is a lot more support for raising awareness about civil rights, teaching about our nation’s history – and all of it – and conducting mentorship and DEI trainings, and with it teaching and learning about the history of racial and other forms of discrimination in America. That should give all of us who support more – not less – education and DEI in general – cause for hope. What better day to celebrate that hope than Juneteenth.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

NCL statement on FTC interim report on PBMs

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

July 10, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Consumers League (NCL) today applauds the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) interim staff report on prescription drug middlemen, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The report details how PBMs profit at the expense of patients, inflating drug costs and squeezing Main Street pharmacies.

The following statement is attributable to NCL’s Robin Strongin, Senior Director of Health Policy:

“The FTC’s continued investigation into PBMs, and this latest report, shows promising momentum in addressing the high out-of-pocket costs of medicines consumers face. Countless investigations such as this, as well as news coverage, patient stories, and pharmacy closures across the country, prove again and again that PBMs are doing more harm than good. As the report shows, the vertical integration of PBMs has allowed them to rake in profits at the expense of patients and independent pharmacies.

“That said, we also recognize that this interim report and its findings don’t go far enough. It’s well past time to examine and address the overall corporatization of health care, including the vertical integration of the industry. In the current set-up, the biggest winners are the health insurance corporations that own PBMs, doctors, pharmacies and more. The biggest losers? Consumers.

“While NCL is encouraged that the FTC is working to hold PBMs accountable, we also encourage the need for meaningful reform that helps and doesn’t harm consumers.”

The full report can be accessed here.

###

 About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

NCL’s Child Labor Coalition praises the Biden Administration’s proposed rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from extreme heat

/in , , , , , , , , /by

July 3, 2024

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The Child Labor Coalition (CLC) strongly supports the Biden Administration’s proposed rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from extreme heat. The U.S. Department of Labor announced the rule on July 2. The CLC is chaired by the National Consumers League (NCL) and has 37 organizational members, including numerous farmworker organizations and nonprofits. Both the CLC and NCL are members of the national Heat Stress Network, organized by Public Citizen.

Read the full proposed rule.

While the proposed rule does not recommend age-specific guidelines for child or teen workers, they would benefit greatly from OSHA-mandated heat-related safety protections. Extreme heat can lead to heat stroke, injuries, illnesses, and even death.

Exemptions to U.S. child labor law allow children in agriculture to work at age 12, and, in some cases, even younger, and those exemptions allow them to work unlimited hours, when school is not in session.

Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy at the Child Labor Coalition, emphasizes the dire conditions faced by outdoor workers: “Farm workers perform physical labor in high heats without the benefit of shade. They work long hours under the hot sun with temperatures well exceeding 90 degrees, sometimes over 100 degrees without a break. They risk passing out, heat stroke, and death. We are most worried about children and teens. There is no doubt that putting rules in place will save lives.”

“President Biden and Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su have taken an important first step,” says Maki. “The proposed rule provides a pivotal opportunity to have a national conversation and develop comprehensive OSHA regulations to protect workers across many industries. We strongly urge the Department to add specific protections for children working in agriculture. We know that children are at increased risk of heat illness.”

The Protect Indoor and Outdoor Workers from Extreme Heat rule proposes several critical measures to address worker safety:

  1. Heat Risk Evaluation: Employers would be required to evaluate heat risks and develop comprehensive plans to mitigate these risks, especially when temperatures exceed 90 degrees.
  2. Rest Breaks and Hydration: Mandatory rest breaks and access to drinking water are key components to ensure workers stay safe and hydrated.
  3. Acclimatization Protocol: Employers must develop protocols to help new employees or those returning from vacation or sick leave adjust to the heat during their first week back.
  4. Heat Illness and Emergency Response Plan: This includes appointing individuals to implement heat emergency procedures, instructions for transporting affected employees to emergency medical facilities, and procedures for responding to signs of heat-related illness or heat stroke.

The proposed rule extends to indoor work environments as well, ensuring that workers in hot indoor settings are also protected. However, the proposed rule specifically excludes professions such as firefighters and emergency response teams.

Employers would also be required to provide training, implement procedures to respond to heat-related illnesses and take immediate action to assist workers experiencing symptoms of heat emergencies.

Summer heatwaves are upon us, and while many of us retreat to air-conditioned spaces, countless workers endure the blistering sun and soaring temperatures. For those laboring in the fields, on construction sites, and in other outdoor environments, extreme heat can be deadly. Record-breaking temperatures across the United States create life-and-death situations for outdoor workers, and each year, thousands of workers suffer from heat-related illnesses and hundreds die.

Whether working indoors or outdoors in high heat, the signs and symptoms of heat-related illness are the same and include weakness, dizziness, headaches, nausea, fevers, overheating, and muscle cramps. According to the Mayo Clinic, workers are encouraged to exercise caution when temperatures are between 80 and 90 degrees (Fahrenheit) and extreme caution when they are between 90-103 degrees. Temperatures higher than that are considered dangerous.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

What we need now isn’t just abortion access; it’s time for a reproductive justice framework

/in , , , /by

By Sam Sears, Health Policy Associate, National Consumers League

For two years now reproductive justice – as a term, a framework, and an ideal – has been thrust into the mainstream. While those who work in reproductive healthcare access and advocacy, particularly abortion access and rights, are familiar with the term, not many people knew about it before the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Given the most recent rulings from the Court this past month, and what’s been happening in the states in the two years since Dobbs, reproductive justice is all that more important.

So, what is reproductive justice?

It’s actually a very simple concept and framework from which advocacy work stems. Coined by Black women in 1994 before the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the term mashes together reproductive rights and social justice. These women recognized that the pro-choice movement at that time was not accomplishing enough for women of color. Expanding upon the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, reproductive justice is often defined as the right to have children, the right to not have children, and the right to parent the children in safe and sustainable communities and environments. Thus, reproductive justice not only includes access to reproductive healthcare, such as birth control and abortions, but it also encompasses economic factors, such as pay equity, childcare costs, and more.

Since the Dobbs decision, there has been an influx of state bans on abortion at various points of gestation and with ever-varying limitations. The most common in the mainstream knowledge base would be Idaho’s ban, one of the nation’s strictest which went into effect in August 2022 (not long after Dobbs). Idaho bans abortion at 6 weeks, with minimal exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of reported rape or incest, making it one of the most restrictive bans in the country. However, there are 15 other states with some of the most restrictive abortion bans as well.

Anti-abortion conservatives have also begun attacking other aspects of reproduction, further bringing the need for reproductive justice to the forefront. In the last two years, there has been an increase in the dis- and misinformation being spread regarding birth control – calling them abortifacients.

Now, I want to be explicitly clear here. Birth control, be it intrauterine devices (IUDs), the standard pill, or a Plan B emergency contraceptive are NOT abortion-inducing drugs. Contraception prevents pregnancy; it does not end it. Because of this misinformation, attempts to secure the right to birth control or attempts to increase access are not passing within state legislatures. And in Idaho, state elected officials are seeing are being pushed to ban access to emergency contraception and IUDs.

Let’s not forget the chaos surrounding in-vitro fertilization (IVF) because of Alabama and this state’s Supreme Court. As a reminder, in February the Alabama State Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are recognized as children under state law. Now the big question is whether, because of this decision, IVF is banned within the state given that not all embryos are viable after being frozen and thawed for placement. So many of the state bans on abortion also include fetuses within the definition of personhood. The impact of the Alabama IVF decision is further-reaching than just the state, especially with the nation’s patchwork web of definitions of personhood because of these bans.

Federal lawmakers have begun trying to clarify and codify access to birth control and IVF. Earlier in June, Senate Democrats hoped to bring a floor vote forward to establish the right to IVF as a method of conceiving. However, the bill, which was authored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who conceived her children with the help of IVF, was blocked by the GOP because of claims of religious freedom and states’ rights concerns. Senate Democrats have also seen the Right to Contraception Act be blocked by the GOP around the same time. Missouri Sen. Hawley states that his concerns regarding the Right to Contraception Act are regarding state laws and how the bill could lead to mifepristone, one of two medications used in the abortion pill, being available in states regardless of their laws.

Last month there were two small wins within the reproductive justice space. SCOTUS had two cases before it that were related to abortion – Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA and Idaho v. United States. For the first case, the suit took aim at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) challenging the agency’s approval of mifepristone, arguing that the FDA did not adequately consider the evidence back in 2000. SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the other plaintiffs in the case did not have the standing to challenge the FDA. SCOTUS ruled to dismiss Idaho v. United States thus leaving in place the order that blocks Idaho from enforcing its current abortion ban, described above. In this case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed against Idaho, arguing that the state’s abortion ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

Overall, the anti-abortion groups are expanding their work well beyond simply abortion. Thirty years ago, the Women of African Descent for Reproductive Justice recognized that the then-pro-choice movement was not enough; it left women of color and other disenfranchised women behind and out of the conversation. These women expanded their work to also include childbirth and child-rearing. With the current attacks against contraception, as well as the uncertainty and expected attacks against IVF, the pro-choice movement must expand as well. It is time for the nation to begin working toward reproductive justice.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.