Two dynamos of women’s rights law crashed through the glass ceiling—part 2

Marcia Greenberger, the founder and co-president of the National Women’s….

Two dynamos of women’s rights law crashed through the glass ceiling—part 1

Marcia Greenberger, the founder and co-president of the National Women’s…

Why won’t New York’s governor Cuomo ban a nasty pesticide that harms children?

Reid Maki is the director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League and he coordinates the Child Labor Coalition.

Something really curious is happening in New York State. In June, the New York Assembly passed a bill to ban the nasty pesticide chlorpyrifos, which damages the development of children. But that’s not the weird part.

What’s surprising is that Governor Andrew Cuomo has not signed the bill, despite the fact that the NY Attorney General Letitia James joined five other attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration’s federal Environmental Protection Agency because it overturned an Obama Administration ban on the pesticide.

“Chlorpyrifos is extremely dangerous, especially to the health of our children,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “Yet, the Trump Administration continues to ignore both the science and law, by allowing this toxic pesticide to contaminate food at unsafe levels. If the Trump EPA won’t do its job and protect the health and safety of New Yorkers, my office will take them to court and force them to fulfill their responsibilities.”

The other states that joined the suit are Washington, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and California—the latter is the country’s largest agricultural producer (measured by cash receipts) and has decided to remove chlorpyrifos from the market in 2020. 

Studies have also linked chlorpyrifos to autism, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention deficit disorders, and delayed motor development.

Nationally, home use was banned in 2001 because of its impact on children’s developing brains. In 2018, Hawaii became the first state to enact a complete ban on its use, which includes farms.

Chlorpyrifos is also thought to damage male reproductive organs to the point that it can make men sterile.

Since food safety authorities determined that there was no safe exposure level to chlorpyrifos—that any trace of the pesticide was too dangerous—the European Union is expected to ban entry of food products contaminated with the pesticide next year.

In August, the National Consumers League (NCL) and the Child Labor Coalition (CLC), which NCL co-chairs, joined 80+ groups—including many from New York—on a letter, urging Governor Cuomo to sign the chlorpyrifos ban. We were naïve enough to think he would.

With an avalanche of data suggesting it is too dangerous to use and his own attorney general suing over its use, why has Cuomo seemingly decided not to ban the pesticide? We can only guess. In July, the governor signed landmark legislation to protect farmworkers from labor abuses, ensure equitable housing and working conditions, and grant them collective bargaining, overtime pay, unemployment compensation and other benefits.

Farmworkers are some of the most exploited workers in America, and we applaud the governor for doing the right thing, but he seems to be taking the position that—having done something farm owners didn’t like—he shouldn’t sign the chlorpyrifos ban because they won’t like that either. The farmers see the pesticide as an effective tool to help them grow crops.

The problem is that chlorpyrifos doesn’t just harm those who eat farm produce; It harms the very people that produce crops—the farmers and the farmworkers and the children of both.

Should giving farmworker labor rights mean that it’s okay to endanger their fertility and cause their children to suffer developmental delays or autism? And from the farmers’ perspective, shouldn’t their children be protected from those afflictions? The governor shouldn’t be striving to protect some of the people some of the time, but should protect all of the people all of the time.

The National Consumers League statement on Senate confirmation of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor

September 30, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) issued this statement in response to the Senate’s 53-44 vote last week to confirm Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor.

The National Consumers League (NCL) is disappointed by the Senate’s confirmation this week of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. The Labor Secretary should be a champion of the working women and men. The National Consumers League is proud that this nation’s first female cabinet member and Secretary of Labor – Frances Perkins – began her professional career representing NCL in New York and was a witness to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York City in 2011, which led to her focus on fire codes and safety reforms in the workplace. As Perkins once said: “I came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen.”

Instead of being a champion for workers, Scalia has devoted his legal career to defending corporate interests:

  • He criticized a Clinton-era rule to protect workers from repetitive stress injuries that was repealed early in the Bush administration
  • He defended Boeing from a labor union lawsuit
  • He fought on behalf of Wal-Mart against a Maryland law aimed at improving workers’ health care.
  • He represented Wal-Mart Secretaries of Labor – to understand the plight of workers, advocate for better pay, working conditions, benefits and safety.
  • He represented the Chamber of Commerce opposing rules requiring mutual fund companies to put independent overseers on their boards of directors, and insurance companies challenging the SEC’s authority to regulate certain annuities with values tied to stocks

As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has noted: “It is insulting and dangerous that lifelong union-buster Eugene Scalia is the country’s top labor official. His track record is well documented, and it’s clear he has yet to find a worker protection he supports or a corporate loophole he opposes. Making the Labor Department—whose mission is to defend the rights of workers and enforce the law—a satellite office of a corporate right-wing law firm flies in the face of working people’s clearly expressed desires.” 

As Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, noted about Scalia:  “The last thing working people need is another Secretary of Labor who sides with corporate CEOs instead of hard-working Americans and makes it harder to join together in unions.”

NCL, which works with DOL on a range of issues, urges the new DOL Secretary to reconsider his inclination to support corporations over the interests of working families and balance these interests with a focus on the impact on workers.

###

About the National Consumers League

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 statement in support of UAW Strike

September 17, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL) has announced its support for the 48,000 United Auto Workers who have gone on strike this week to demand their share of the $12 billion profits GM earned last year. The strike also comes in protest of GM’s announcement that it–the largest of American automakers–would shutter four different U.S. plants.

“We stand with UAW members who are asking for what is only fair–a reasonable share of the enormous profits GM has enjoyed in the past year alone. The UAW loyally took a hit a decade ago to keep GM profitable and viable. Without the workers, there would be no cars and no profits. Ten years later, with GM back earning billions in profits, auto workers are entitled to enjoy this success and the fruits of their labor: better pay, profit sharing, and an end to GM’s bringing in temporary workers that reduce pay and benefits. Workers also deserve improved health care benefits,” said Sally Greenberg, the League’s executive director.

More than a decade ago when GM was facing bankruptcy, UAW members bore a significant portion of the sacrifices to bring the automaker back to financial health. At the time, the union agreed to a plan whereby General Motors hired many new workers at roughly half the pay of unionized members and greatly reduced their retirement benefits. Then GM brought in temporary workers with even fewer wage-and-benefit packages and little job security.

“GM has reduced its U.S. payrolls, announced it is closing four plants in the United States, and moved a number of others to Mexico–all of which has helped to restore GM to its current health and ability to earn billions in profits, at the sacrifice of its workers,” said Greenberg.

“NCL supports the 48,000 workers who are demanding what is theirs: a fair share in more than 50 GM plants and other locations across the Midwest and South,” said Greenberg. “We support these hardworking women and men and call on GM to sit down with the union and arrive at a contract that shares the benefits of GM’s current profits with its dedicated, hardworking employees.”

###

About the National Consumers League

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.

Boy jockeys in Indonesia risk injury and death

Reid Maki is the director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League and he coordinates the Child Labor Coalition.

I didn’t quite believe my eyes when I saw the recent New York Times headline: “For Indonesia’s Child Jockeys, Time to Retire at 10, After 5 years of Racing.”  The story, written and photographed by Adam Dean, revealed that child jockeys in Indonesia’s island of Sumbawa as young as 5 are racing horses and getting hurt in the process. The cultural practice is entrenched and boy jockeys are getting younger each year. “In the late ‘90s, jockeys were usually aged from about 10 to 14 years old, but then we found the lighter jockeys to be faster, and now they are aged from about 6 to 10, Fahrir H.M. Noer, a deputy chairman of one of the races, told reporter Dean.

As an advocate who has followed child labor closely for 20 years, I was not surprised that young children might do something dangerous. More than one million children around the world are engaged in mining, which is extremely hazardous. We’ve seen photos of children in the Philippines who mine underwater, connected to very precarious breathing tubes. Children work with toxic chemicals in leather tanning facilities; they help break apart giant ships. Nearly half the 152 million children trapped in child labor perform hazardous child labor.

In this case, however, I was surprised that that children, 5 to 10, could be asked to control animals so large and fast—a task that requires well developed athletic skills. Dean’s stunning photos confirm that this phenomenon is happening:

Racing around the first bend. Adam Dean for The New York Times

Child jockeys, between ages 5 to 10, in a professional race on the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia in July.

The Child Labor Coalition has been posting these photos on Twitter (@ChildLaborCLC) and there has been almost no response from our 17,000 followers. Several tweets have elicited only one or two retweets each. There has been no horror decrying the practice–no expressions of concern for the little boys.  I don’t know why this is the case. Cleary, jockeying a horse is dangerous and these children are too young. Is the public confused because horse racing is a sport? Or does it feel that the use of children as jockeys is an embedded cultural practice in Indonesia and somehow acceptable?

Dean tells the story of Firmansyah, 8, who fell off his horse while racing and hit his head on a wooden railing. Fortunately, the boy’s injury did not seem to be as serious as feared.

Although horse racing officials in Indonesia defend the practice of using child jockeys as part of the culture and something the children want to do, some Indonesian advocates disagree. The Times story quotes Arist Merdeka Sirait, chairman of the National Commission for child protection, a nonprofit: “This is clearly child exploitation. The horses move so fast. The boys ride the horses with no proper protection. This is violence against children. As children, they cannot say no to their parents or whoever ordered them to ride the horse.”

This new report of child jockeys is not the first. We’ve known for a long time that the Persian Gulf nations used child jockeys—boys trafficked form Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sudan—to ride camels in races. For a time, there were reports that the boys were being replaced with robotic jockeys but that attempt appears to have been short-lived. In July 2002, Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan announced a ban on child jockeys under 15, but in 2010, Anti-Slavery International photographed violations of the ban. A report in FrontPage Mag in December of 2011 said that the “Camel jockey slave trade [is] still alive and well.” The report noted that some of the Persian Gulf’s boy jockeys in training were “starved, beaten and sometimes sexually abused.” Death and serious injury, as well as damaged genitals, may result from jockeying. The child jockeys in the Persian Gulf were also often victims of trafficking from other countries—something that doesn’t seem to be happening to the child jockeys of Indonesia.

The Indonesian jockeys wear masks on their faces. We can’t help but wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to obscure the riders’ faces so that race fans can ignore the fact that children are risking their lives for their pleasure.

An owner embracing his horse after a winning ride. Adam Dean for The New York Times

Check out this boy who is resting after an injury—he looks so young and fragile:

Imam Dudu, 8, resting after a fall. Adam Dean for The New York Times

And the facial injuries to this rider:

Firmansyah, 8, who fell from his horse the day before, getting ready for another race.

Isn’t it time for this dangerous practice to end?

Our gratitude to Adam Dean for breaking this story and for his stunning photos. Thanks to the New York Times for this powerful expose.

Happy belated Labor Day!

I have an excuse for not writing a Labor Day Blog last weekI had a draft all written and then CNN ran a wonderful editorial with a very similar thesis. The gist was that without immigrants–many of whom are denied citizenship, pay taxes, and perform a vast number of jobs–this country couldn’t function. They build our skyscrapers, mow our lawns, take care of our children and parents, bus tables at our restaurants, drive our taxis, Lyfts, and Ubers, serve us at fast-food restaurants, and so much more. So, I’ll try a variation on my original theme.

All four of my grandparents were immigrants. My dad’s parents came over as children from Lithuania, and my mom’s were from Romania. They were poor and didn’t speak English. My maternal grandpa crossed the Atlantic in a ship in steerage (below the deck) with just a few bucks in his pocket. He worked as a delivery boy and went on to found a thriving company. Why did they choose America? To escape pogroms aimed at Jews, for freedom of religion, and for economic opportunity.

Sound familiar? These are precisely the reasons immigrants from Central and South America, Asia, and Africa seek refuge and, ultimately, citizenship in the United States.

Yes, my relatives came here legally, but the path to citizenship was easier at the turn of the 20th Century. You basically just needed to be healthy to be admitted. But that changed in the 1920s when anti-immigrant sentiments ran high. If my grandparents hadn’t emigrated, they likely would have been murdered by the Nazis–and I wouldn’t be here. That’s true for millions of Americans today.

Today’s immigrants have many more barriers thrown in their path. And why should they? They want what my family came for: economic and educational opportunity and to work hard while raising families without the constant fear of violence and poverty. To be sure, we need a sound immigration policy–that means screening those seeking to immigrate for criminal backgrounds or health concerns. But banning all but a trickle of certain “favored” immigrants is crazy and hurts both our economy and social fabric.

Whenever I hear virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric from the White House or elected officials, I want to ask, “didn’t your family immigrate here? Weren’t they seeking the very same things today’s immigrants want?” The answer, of course, is “yes.” That’s why proclamations like “build the wall” and “ban Muslims” are so offensive, unfair, and not at all in keeping with the famous words of Lady Liberty: “give me your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free.” These are the words that should be the theme for celebrating Labor Day.

Trump’s fuel economy rollbacks: a loss for workers, consumers, the environment

headshot of NCL LifeSmarts intern Alexa

By NCL LifeSmarts intern Elaina Pevide

Cars are baked into American life – around 83 percent of households own one – so any change in the cost or availability of gasoline affects an enormous group of Americans.

Although most of us have grumbled about the cost of gas at some point—and memories of the Great Recession and its dramatic spikes in gas prices are enough to send shivers down the spine of many Americans—some Americans are affected more than others by increases. Did you know that low-income households spend twice as much of their income on gasoline as other Americans? For this group, fuel economy is an especially close-to-home issue.

The Obama Administration made significant headway in improving fuel economy standards and fostering American innovation when it announced the One National Program in 2010. That program unified the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas emission standards with the fuel economy standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This initiative set long-term goals for fuel efficiency aiming at Model Year 2025, when vehicular CO2 emissions were slated to be reduced by half. The One National Program was a win-win for consumers and the environment. Obama’s initiative would have made the American automotive industry a world leader in environmentally-friendly innovation while also giving the U.S. a huge advantage in a turbulent global economy adapting to the threat of climate change.

Perhaps the greatest benefactor of Obama’s One National Program was the average consumer. Doubling fuel economy means that consumers get twice the bang for their buck at the pump. These benefits would eventually help the less affluent the most, many of whom own used vehicles. Low-income secondhand car owners would pay little of the front-end cost of innovation, but would still save hundreds of dollars on gas on later model used cars.

During the last 7 months of the Obama Administration, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy determined that, given the success of the program thus far, the program would maintain its initial goal of a 54.5 mpg fuel economy standard by 2025. Unfortunately, the Trump administration did not take long to backpedal on this dramatic win for consumers, workers, and the environment.

On March 15, 2017, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao reopened the evaluations. Two weeks later, they provided their disappointing and controversial results: the Trump EPA did not believe in the efficacy of the One National Program. By August, NHTSA and the EPA announced a new rule, called the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, the euphemistically-named rollback that handed the automotive industry a big win. The federal actions revoked the ability of California and 13 other states to enforce their own higher standards for environmentally-friendly vehicles.

The SAFE Vehicles Rule is misnamed. The Trump Administration is, in our view, mistaken in its assertions that the freeze and rollback of fuel economy standards will benefit anyone. An analysis by the Consumer Federation of America found that the program has already saved consumers $500 billion, with an extra $400 billion to be found in health, macroeconomic and environmental benefits. Trump’s plan will end these savings and cost the average American household $4,500. We know that fuel efficiency creates a healthy economy, environment, and, thus, a healthier society. Sadly, the current Administration has thrown that out the window.

Global warning and climate change are urgent problems. According to an article from Union of Concerned Scientists, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions–more than 19 pounds per gallon–comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

Improving vehicular fuel efficiency is crucial to the future of the United States. High fuel economy standards reduce our need for foreign oil and encourage American companies to keep up with the green innovation around the world. As Europe, China, and other regions address global warming and reducing auto emissions, America is rolling back the clock. As a nation heavily reliant on cars for daily life, we call upon President Trump, his federal appointees, and the auto industry, to reverse these foolhardy decisions and demand improved fuel economy–to set us back on track towards the goals we were on course to meet just a few years ago.

Elaina Pevide is a student at Brandeis University where she majors in Public Policy and Psychology with a minor in Economics. She expects to graduate in May of 2020.

NCL heralds House passage of Raise the Wage

July 19, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242, or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League (NCL), celebrating its 120th Anniversary of fighting for minimum wage workers, and author of the first minimum wage bills in America,  praised the  actions of the US House of Representatives in the passage July 18, 2019 Raise the Wage Act of 2019 (H.R. 582) by a 231 to 199 vote.  

“I just know that Florence Kelley is smiling upon us today,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. Kelley, NCL’s pioneering champion for the League’s first 33 years, wrote the nation’s first of these bills in the early decades of the 20th Century. “She had many setbacks along the way,” said Greenberg, “including when DC’s minimum wage law was found unconstitutional in 1918 by the Supreme Court.”

But she persisted, and today the minimum wage is recognized as both constitutional and necessary to protect the lowestpaid workers in America. NCL advocates for the $15 an hour minimum wage in today’s legislation and supports a long overdue increase to a wage that is fair, livable, and conducive to a dignified quality of life.  

The bill would raise the minimum wage–stuck at $7.25 for nearly 10 years–to $15 an hour by 2025, helping lift millions out of poverty. In addition, Raise the Wage will decrease the wage gap between minimum and median wage workers, as after 2025, the wage will continue to increase indexed to the median wage. Raise the Wage will also ensure fair wages for people with disabilities, who currently could make mere pennies an hour. The current exemptions for disabled employees is “legalized discrimination,” NCL believes. Raise the Wage has the added potential to decrease unemployment and reduce poverty, as shown by the University of California at Berkeley research examining the results of raising the minimum wage in the city of Berkeley.  

Democratic Members reminded their colleagues that Congress set the minimum wage since 1938 when it was enacted in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) called the Republican claim of federal interference “hogwash.”  

NCL congratulates and thanks the House Members who supported this landmark overdue legislation. “We salute Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her towering leadership,” said GreenbergShe noted that the bill grows our economy and creates economy, increases families’ purchasing power and drives economic growth that lifts up all communities. Affording people a livable minimum wage benefits local economies, since workers will have higher earnings to spend at local businesses. 

NCL was founded in 1899 on the principles of promoting a fair marketplace for workers and consumers. More than a century–120 yearslater, NCL continues to work to ensure progressive reforms take place in communities and workplaces across the country. NCL is also proud of its history of championing state minimum wage laws. Our founder, Florence Kelley, led a campaign that saw 14 states pass some of the first minimum wage laws. Following those victories, NCL worked to pass the 1938 federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which established federal minimum wage. Since then, we have advocated – and will continue to advocate – for increased federal minimum wages. 

###

About the National Consumers League

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.