This holiday season, a present for DC’s workers: Part 2 – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Second in a two-part series examining the new worker protection bills just passed by DC City Council.

Earned Sick and Safe Leave Amendment Act of 2013 (*bill text) — extends protections to 20,000+ new workers and boosts enforcement to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of workers already covered are actually able to get the leave they earn under the law.

The bill as a whole will go into effect once funds for implementation are included in DC’s spring 2014 budget.

Covering Tipped Restaurant Workers

First and foremost, the bill extends paid sick days to tipped restaurant workers, who were carved out by an amendment when the original Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act passed in 2008. The bill guarantees that these workers will receive their normal base wage or the full minimum wage (currently $8.25) for each hour of leave they use, whichever is higher. They will accrue one hour of paid leave for every 43 hours worked, up to five days per year.

No More Year of Waiting for Leave

Current law allows employers to wait a whole year before letting their employees accrue even a single sick day. The bill would guarantee that workers in all industries can start earning sick days from their first day on the job and could start using them after 90 days and would close a loophole where workers could be fired and then rehired in order to cancel their accrued leave. Especially in high turnover industries like child-care, cleaning, security, construction, and restaurants, these changes are huge victories.

Real Enforcement Mechanisms

The bill includes some of the best enforcement mechanisms in the country for any paid leave bill. Employees who are denied paid sick days will get to choose between filing an administrative claim with the DC Office of Wage-Hour or suing in court. Either way, in addition to any lost pay for the days they took off, they would be owed $500 in damages for each day they were forced to work instead of taking leave they had earned, interest for pay owed, reinstatement if they were fired or demoted for taking leave, and attorneys fees and court costs to help enable them to bring a claim.

Workers will have three years to file a claim and longer if their employer failed to post the required notice of paid sick leave rights. Businesses will be required to keep records of hours worked and leave accrued for at least that long and, if they fail to keep required records, employees’ testimony about the failure to be paid leave will be presumed true. The District government will also be able to assess enforcement costs and $1000 or higher civil penalties for violations as well as suspend business licenses until the violations are cured.

To encourage employees to come forward and speak out about violations, the bill includes strong retaliation protections not only when workers file official complaints, but also when they advocate for their rights directly to their supervisor, share information during an investigation, or share information about the right to sick leave with their co-workers.

Public Education

Finally, the bill provides for a public education campaign to ensure workers and employers know about the new law and how to comply with it.

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

This holiday season, a present for DC’s workers: Part 1 – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michell K. McIntyre, Outreach Director, Labor and Worker Rights

First in a two-part series examining the new worker protection bills just passed by DC City Council. Congratulations to all DC workers and to the advocates who helped push the Washington, DC City Council to unanimously pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 and the Earned Sick and Safe Leave Amendment Act of 2013 on Tuesday, December 17th without allowing the bills to be weakened by industry-sponsored amendments. 

Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2013 (click here for bill text) The bill increases the minimum wage, which is currently $8.25, to $11.50 in three steps:

  • $9.50 on July 1, 2014
  • $10.50 on July 1, 2015
  • $11.50 on July 1, 2016

Just as importantly, starting on July 1, 2017 and every July 1 thereafter, the bill requires that the minimum wage be increased to reflect changes in the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index in the Washington, DC area. This will stop the real value of the minimum wage from declining over time, which is a big reason why there are numerous fights to raise it. This is a huge win for workers, and an issue that has received tremendous public attention—and support—in recent months. Hooray for this minimum wage victory! What About Tipped Workers? Although the bill does not raise the base minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers (which stands at a miserable $2.77 an hour and hopefully will be raised with other legislation), it does require that employers of tipped workers verify and certify every quarter that all of their employees do end up making at least the full minimum wage through a combination of their base wages and tips actually received. This will hopefully reduce one form of wage theft, which is common in the restaurant industry, where employees are not compensated when their tips are short for the week and don’t make up the difference between $2.77 and the full minimum wage.

Cleaning up antibacterial soap – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

92_ayannaBy Ayanna Johnson, Health Policy Associate Last week, FDA released a proposed ruling to require additional evidence that antibacterial soap is more effective at preventing illness or infection, than washing with plain soap and water. Consumers use antibacterial products daily in soaps, body washes, and other health care products.  FDA wants to ensure that with long-term exposure to the chemicals in antibacterial soap the benefits outweigh the risks.

New data suggests that certain ingredients in antibacterial soap, like triclosan, might contribute to bacterial resistance to antibiotics or have hormonal effects that are concerning to FDA. Bacterial resistance is a serious problem that impacts everyone. If certain bacteria become resistant to the medicines we use to treat them, public health and safety can be threatened. This all is a bit concerning since we use antibacterial or antimicrobial products frequently.

Working with the Environmental Protection Agency, FDA is requesting that manufacturers provide additional evidence from studies demonstrating the effects and risks of these products.  This proposed ruling only impacts consumer antibacterial soaps and body washes that are used with water; it does not affect hand sanitizers, hand wipes or antibacterial soap used in hospitals or other health care settings.

During this cold and flu season, it is important to wash your hands to keep you and your family safe from germs and illness. And plain soap and water works just fine. Remember when washing your hands to rub them together with soap and water for at least 10-15 seconds and rinse. If you don’t have soap or water around, use an alcohol based hand sanitizer. Here are some other commonly asked questions about antibacterial soap. As always if you have questions you should first talk to your health care provider. How do I know if my soap is “antibacterial?” If you are wondering if a product you use is antibacterial, check the drug facts label or the ingredients. Antibacterial soaps contain special chemicals used to prevent bacterial contamination, like triclosan. Triclosan is the chemical under question by the FDA. What is bacterial resistance? Doctors have noticed that some bacteria are getting tougher to kill. The usual antibiotic drugs don’t seem to work as well – or work at all. Such bacteria are said to be resistant.

Bacterial resistance makes an infection much harder to treat. Higher doses or stronger drugs may be required. In extreme cases, bacterial resistance can be fatal. Need More information. Visit the FDA And don’t forget, your health is in your CLEAN hands!

Shoppers deserve trust and security from our biggest retailers – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud Imagine that you’re the CEO of Target today. As one of the 25 most admired companies in the world, consumers’ trust in your brand is paramount to your success. Over the past week you’ve learned that your company is the victim of one of the largest retail data breaches in U.S. history. Cyber thieves compromised 40 million consumers’ credit and debit cards. To add insult to injury, the breach happened during the height of the holiday shopping season – the most important month in your company’s calendar.

With every media story about the incident, each outraged consumer Facebook comment and critical tweet, that trust is eroded. It’s clear that Target is facing a public relations nightmare. How they react to this will determine how much faith consumers will continue to place in the brand. Unfortunately, the advice consumers are getting from the company so far is depressingly familiar: monitor your credit and debit card statements, keep an eye on your credit report and report irregularities promptly. This is the advice consumers hear after virtually every data breach. Are the increasing number of data breaches just something that consumers need to get used to?

In a recent article about the Target breach Mark Rasch, a former U.S. prosecutor of cybercrime said, “Most of these attacks are just a cost of doing business,” As advocates for consumers, we categorically reject the notion that the status quo is an acceptable outcome. We must not accept a marketplace where consumers are asked to make ever more data available to more entities but are stuck with the consequences when those entities fail to protect our data. We think that the government and private sector can and should do more to protect the vast amounts of sensitive data that they are collecting from consumers. This is not a new issue.

For decades, data security experts have discussed ideas about how to improve the situation. At its core, consumer and business data is the focus of a never-ending arms race between those that want to protect consumer data and those that want to steal it for fraudulent uses. Just as no bank can ever be 100% secure from a robbery, no data can ever be 100% secure from a breach. However, consumers should be able to rely on a certain basic level of data security. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we lack today. Shockingly, there is no one law in the U.S. that mandates the steps businesses should take to protect their customers’ data. Instead, consumers are reliant on precedents set by Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions.

Since 2000, the FTC – under it’s “unfair and deceptive acts or practices” authority — has brought nearly fifty data security cases against companies whose data security practices (or lack thereof) have put consumers at risk. However, that authority could be taken away if the FTC loses in two closely watched court cases. Should the FTC lose, consumers will be left without one of the most important watchdogs in this fight. Consumers should not be left to fend for themselves against the legions of sophisticated and organized data thieves. The Target breach, and the daily smaller breaches that go unreported should serve as a wake-up call for legislators and regulators that data security reform is urgently needed.

A push to cleanse America’s meat – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

kelsey By Kelsey Albright, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow A week ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a ruling making clear its intent to reduce the amount of antibiotics in animal feed.  It is the first push in the Obama administration’s three-year strategy of reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics, especially for growth promotion, in livestock and poultry.

The largest motivation for this proposal is to reduce the increasing number of antibiotic-resistant infections which kill thousands of Americans each year. FDA’s announcement included a final guidance which asks veterinary drug companies to voluntarily remove growth promoting claims from antibiotics that are most important in human medicine.  The other part of the announcement detailed the proposed rule that would require prescriptions from veterinarians for antibiotics currently sold over the counter and added to animal’s food and water.

Two of the largest veterinary drug companies, Zoetis and Elanco, have openly supported the proposed rule and either already comply or are planning to comply with the guidance recommending the removal of growth-promotion claims from labels.  However, many antibiotic activists are saying both the rule and the guidance are too weak to initiate real change. Despite harsh criticisms from politicians and invested organizations, I feel that FDA should be applauded for its efforts.  While these actions may not be as extreme as I, or any of my fellow nutrition advocates, would have liked, it is a step in the right direction on FDA’s behalf.  Progress doesn’t happen in one day, it takes time, it is a clock with ever moving interconnected gears that never stops ticking.  This rule is now one of those gears and I am glad to see if fall into rotation, hopefully opening more doors for stricter antibiotics regulation in the future.

In a win for consumers, Volcker Rules take effect – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
This week marked a milestone for the Dodd-Frank law: a new set of rules to prevent banks from taking huge risks with other people’s money. The new regulations come under the umbrella of the Volcker Rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.  The Volcker rule was just approved by five of the nation’s Government regulators and is a sweeping set of new rules for the nation’s biggest banks. Thankfully, the Volcker Rule bans financial institutions from the kind of ultra-high-risk trading that nearly collapsed the world’s financial system.

Despite a fierce lobbying effort to prevent the new measure, it won out. The Volcker Rule will prohibit banks from trading for their own profit rather than on behalf of customers. We are pleased that the rules came out stronger than anyone expected. Commentators believe that consumers won this round. “Big banks lost,” said Mark Williams, a former Fed bank examiner who now teaches at Boston University. “Wall Street aggressively fought the Volcker rule.”

 

The new rule will ban federally insured banks from betting on risky investments such as private equity and hedge funds. Private equity funds buy companies and turn them around before selling them, while hedge funds often employ complex trading strategies. These investments have proved highly profitable in the past, but are also extremely risky because they are often so complicated that most of the world, including experts in this stuff, often don’t understand how these investments work. That is by design.

 

The Volcker Rule also closes a critical loophole. “The Volcker rule will make it illegal for firms to use government-insured money to make speculative bets that threaten the entire financial system, and demand a new era of accountability from CEOs who must sign off on their firms’ practices,” President Obama said in a statement. The rule goes into effect in April but banks have until July 2015 to comply.

 

Also, financial firms may buy and sell securities as a way to hedge bets, but they also take a lot of risks in the process and when they fail, they can bring down others with them. For example, JPMorgan Chase & Co. suffered more than $6 billion in losses from positions by a trader who was known as the “London Whale” for his oversized hedges. JPMorgan Chase is the nation’s largest bank and this risky trading has huge repercussions in the financial industry.

 

Now the Volcker rule will require banks to continually monitor and adjust hedging strategies to ensure they don’t become overly risky bets that damage investors.

 

Another feature of the new rule is that institutions will have to document rationales for hedges.  Fed Gov. Daniel Tarullo, who heads the agency’s bank supervision and regulation committee, said the “Whale” episode provided “a real-world example of what should not happen in a banking organization.”

 

Banks will be required to keep records to back up their positions, and chief executives will be required to sign off on their firms’ compliance. They are also being asked under the new rule to structure employee compensation so that it does not “reward or incentivize” engaging in prohibited proprietary trading practices or expose the bank “to excessive or imprudent risk.”

 

Two Senators who pushed for the rule back in 2010, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said they were pleased that it was tougher than what regulators originally proposed.

 

Merkley, who is a great consumer and worker champion, joined Levin in a statement on the new regulation, saying the Volcker rule “was intended to change the culture and practices at our nation’s largest financial firms, to prevent Wall Street and the big banks from making swing-for-the-fences bets that put depositors and taxpayers at risk. The regulators have taken a serious step forward in mandating critical changes.”

 

This is an important victory for taxpayers and the public and a defeat for Wall Street.

 

For that we need to thank the heads of the five regulatory agencies who hung tough in the face of strong industry lobbying and opposition, including Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry, who said at a recent FDIC board meeting, “Issuing a final rule is only the beginning of the process. The OCC will be especially vigilant in developing a robust examination and enforcement program that ensures our largest institutions will remain compliant.” It’s about time.

Did you know another American falls victim to ID theft #every3seconds? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud

NCL’s “State of ID Theft” Conference To Put National Spotlight on Continuing Problem

For thirteen years, the crime of identity theft has generated more complaints to the Federal Trade Commission than another other fraud. In 2012, more than 12 million Americans were affected by identity theft, costing the U.S. economy $20.9 billion. Every three seconds, a consumer’s identity is comprised by this pernicious crime.

 

Seven years ago, President George W. Bush, recognizing the seriousness of the threat of ID theft, created the federal Identity Theft Task Force. Made up of eighteen federal agencies, the task force was charged with implementing a range of recommendations to address the threat of ID theft. The task force made thirty-one recommendations, from reducing the use of Social Security Numbers by federal agencies, to improving coordination by law enforcement, to passing a national data breach notification standard, to name a few. The implementation of these recommendations by the federal government, as well as improved anti-fraud procedures in the private sector, have done much to make life harder on ID thieves.

Despite these advances, ID theft is still a major threat to consumers, business and the government. According to one conservative estimate, more than 1.1 billion records have been comprised by identity theft. Data breaches, which put information on millions of consumers in the hands of fraudsters, are still occurring at a rate of at least one per day.

Just as troubling, it appears that we may be on the cusp of a new wave of ID theft. With ever larger amounts of data being collected about consumers by government and the private sector, data breaches become more likely. Identity thieves are shifting towards scams that are harder to detect, such as tax-related ID theft and medical ID theft. And the criminal themselves — often located overseas — are becoming more professional and organized.

How will these new factors affect consumers’ vulnerability to identity theft? What can we learn from the last seven years of fighting this problem? What should consumers expect from regulators, law enforcement and the private sector as this crime evolves?

To examine these and other questions, the National Consumers League will be hosting our first State of ID Theft conference on December 12 in Washington, DC. The event will bring together some of the brightest minds in the country for panel discussion examining the continuing threat of ID theft and what can be done to better protect consumers. Headlining the conference will be a lunchtime conversation between FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Former Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras, who co-chaired the federal Identity Theft Task Force from 2006-08.

Registration is free but space is limited. Please RSVP here. For more information please contact John Breyault at johnb@nclnet.org.

 

Drinking raw milk is a raw deal – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

kelsey By Kelsey Albright, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

Over the past decade, food movements centered around eating local foods, “locavore”, organic, and ethically produced foods have sky rocketed. Being that many of these forms of producing and labeling food are the start of a new frontier, plenty of laws and regulations have been put in place to ensure that consumers are not misinformed about their food.  As part of this movement, many Americans have turned to drinking raw milk. Surprisingly little is known about raw milk, and current regulations are lax to say the least.

More and more frequently consumers, especially children and others with weaker immune systems, are getting sick thanks to bacteria like Salmonella, E. coli and Listeria that can easily live and grow in unpasteurized milk.  Maddie Powell is just one example of a child gravely sickened by E. coli found in raw milk.  She developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS ) and was hospitalized for weeks at great cost to her family. So why do people keep drinking raw milk if it’s so potentially dangerous?  Overwhelmingly, people are misinformed about how risky it is and assume that it must be more nutritious because it’s less processed. 

No scientific evidence supports raw milk having more nutrients.  The CDC estimates that between 1993 and 2006, 1500 people have fallen ill from drinking raw milk and consumers are 150 times more likely to contract a food borne illness from raw milk than pasteurized dairy products.  Pregnant women should be especially careful because even if they don’t feel sick, bacteria in raw milk can cause miscarriage, fetal death or illness, and even death among newborns. In this day and age of high fat, sugar, and salt, it can be tempting to search for foods that are the least processed.  Fortunately there are alternatives to raw milk.  Light pasteurization or “low-temperature vat pasteurization” heats smaller amounts of milk to a temperature cooler than is typical with regular pasteurization for a longer amount of time.  Also buying milks that aren’t homogenized, meaning the fat hasn’t been broken up so it remains suspended in the milk, is a viable option for those who might think raw milk is simply tastier.  Please, for your own sake, don’t drink raw milk.

Help support NCL’s mission #GivingTuesday – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

For the first time this year NCL will participate in Giving Tuesday, a national day of giving to help kick off the holiday season. Following Black Friday and Cyber Monday, more than 8,300 non-profits will aim to grab a piece of the post-Thanksgiving spending flurry. Consumers spent more than $12 billion on Black Friday, the biggest spending day of the year.

Billions more were spent on Thanksgiving and will be spent on Cyber Monday. This year, direct your charitable giving to the National Consumers League. Just a small donation can help:

Donate today, help support NCL’s 114-year legacy protecting America’s consumers and workers!  

Thanksgiving day is a time for family not shopping – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michell K. McIntyre, Outreach Director, Labor and Worker Rights Black Friday – the term alone can strike fear and excitement in even the most seasoned shoppers. But what consumers often don’t see or understand is what happens on the other side of the counter. Many stores have announced that they will be open on Thanksgiving to maximize consumer’s Black Friday enthusiasm. They have determined that shoppers are willing to curb their Thanksgiving festivities and traditions to start their holiday shopping on a day that is supposed to be centered on family and giving thanks for the blessings in one’s life. Stores like Costco, Nordstrom, Dillard’s and T.J. Maxx have resisted the urge to open on the holiday, however, many stores including Walmart, Macy’s, Toys “R” Us, and Best Buy will be open to shoppers on Thanksgiving day with some stores opening as early as 6am.

 But what does that mean for the workers who have to man the registers and stock the shelves? Many can’t show up to work at 6am on Thanksgiving – they have to get to their stores at least an hour before the doors open. What happened to their holiday? What happened to their time for family festivities and traditions? These workers tend to be low-wage earners that struggle to make ends meet. If a single mother with two children is making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and is working full time, she’s only earning $15,080 a year – well below the poverty rate for a family of three. If she’s making $10 an hour, she’s only earning $20,800 a year – still below the poverty rate and she would qualify for public assistance.

Consumers need to be aware of the reality facing these retail workers. Below is John Paul Ashton’s story of his constant struggle to put food on the table and support his family with meager wages. Ashton happens to work for Walmart, the largest private employer in the US, who also has a proven track record of using illegal retaliation and firings to intimidate and curb worker’s collective bargaining actions. Walmart, is also one of the most profitable retailers in the world. This holiday shopping season, Walmart workers will be taking a stand and protesting the company’s abusive labor practices, including poverty-level wages, stingy benefits, and irregular work schedules that make it impossible for their families to make ends meet.

John Paul Ashton: Scraping By on Less Than $25K John Paul “JP” Ashton, is a 31-year old Walmart maintenance worker who makes around $20,000 a year. Originally from Colorado, Ashton now lives in Washington. He is the father of two and has worked at Walmart for more than five years to support his family. “When I first started at Walmart I was told that it was a place where I could grow and have opportunities. I soon discovered that was not the case,” said Ashton. “People take being able to buy lunch for granted. I don’t need a fancy job, but what I do need is a job that allows me to provide for my family and to be able to speak out without fear of retaliation.

It would also be nice to have more than $2 in my bank account after I pay my bills.” Ashton, who must walk 45 minutes to work, prides himself on being a provider for his family. As one of the many Walmart workers who earn less than $25,000 a year, during his time with the mega-retailer Ashton has had to, at times, rely on food banks to feed his family.

Currently, he receives food stamps in order to put food on the table. “No one wants to have to rely on food stamps to live (and trust me I know how to budget the little money I make), but at the end of the day because of what Walmart pays I have no other choice. It’s hard for me to understand how a company that makes all that money and a family that has over $144 billion can justify what they pay workers,” he said. Ashton, who enrolled in Walmart’s healthcare plan in order to provide insurance to his two children, brings home on average $1200-1400 a month.

Often he is unable to pay his rent in full because his bi-weekly paycheck does not cover the full amount. Ashton joined OUR Walmart because he wanted to have a voice on the job and the ability to speak with management about working conditions without fear of retaliation. When asked what $25,000 a year would mean for him Ashton’s remark was simple, “Freedom…freedom to do more things for my children.” “I don’t need or want much. Yes, it would be nice to have a car or maybe a house. It would even be nice to have more than $10 in my bank account. Sam Walton said ‘you treat employees right, treat customers right and we all make money.’ Walmart does not does not live up to that and I am going to keep fighting until they do.” Read about more workers like JP each week as we release more stories from the majority of Walmart employees who struggle to get by on less than $25,000 a year.