New “Fair Pay” Law for 2016 is “Fairly” Opaque

Since statistics tracked the difference in pay for men and women, women have been paid about 76 to 84 cents for every dollar earned by a man, holding constant factors such as education and skill. A federal law—the Equal Pay Act— was intended to address this but has been a bust because women in similar jobs to men cannot prove the disparity is due to gender differences. California will implement a new law in 2016 that aggressively tackles this problem. My take? The intentions are commendable, but no law can sort out the complex array of factors that affect pay. Research has shown, over and over, that men bargain more aggressively for starting pay and pay raises than women. Is that evidence of discrimination? No. The labor market consistently undervalues female dominated professions such as HR management, and pays more for accounting and financial management— male dominated fields. Controlling for education and managerial discretion, California employers might need to pay HR professionals (mostly women) more. My concern is that employers will actually go the other way, and pay men less. Is that progress? My ultimate worry is that this law will unleash a flood of “fair pay” lawsuits, leading some employers to classify workers as independent contractors, thereby avoiding this misguided employment law.

Japan Apolgizes for Comfort Women

After decades of denial and foot-dragging, Japan has directly and formally apologized to South Korea for using women as sex slaves for soldiers. It's another type of holocaust that is worsened by denial and obfuscation. Kudos to Prime Minister Abe for reversing course. Here's to a new year of healing for the victims and their families.

JFK and Trump: Are Americans "the Watchmen on the Walls of World Freedom?"

"We in this country, in this generation, are-- by destiny rather than by choice-- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom." Visiting the site of JFK's assassination, I found this memorial from a speech the president was scheduled to deliver the afternoon he was murdered. In JFK's never-delivered speech, he speaks of walls and the American people and exceptionalism. More than 50 years later, his "watchmen on the walls of world freedom" is replaced by a vision of Americans who build walls of fear and isolation.

Should the U.S. Allow Trademarks of Racial Slurs?

The "Slants" is an Asian-American music group that applied for a trademark of its edgy name. The U.S. government agency that grants trademarks rejected their application because of its racial overtones. The Washington Redskins have a similar dispute with the same office. This agency also has rejected the trademarking of anti-Islam groups. But is this an infringement of First Amendment rights? There are two main views to consider: 1. The government has no business in filtering free speech. 2. The government has no business to lend its legal protection to speech that promotes the degradation of a race or religion. A federal appeals court, in a split vote, has sided with the Slants. See here.

Is Arbitration Perverting Justice?

Arbitration is an ancient method to resolve disputes outside court. It dates to King Solomon’s private resolution of a maternity dispute. Today, it is a method for large corporations to gain huge leverage over workers, consumers, tenants and other “little people.” Investors are buying up uncollected debt on the cheap. They sue in court, and win a garnishment order. In the story below, the little guy has his Social Security benefits docked. The problem for the little guy: He wanted to challenge the debt he accrued but was denied access to court because he was compelled to agree to arbitration. The investor who bought up his debt had no such restriction, however. He went to court—with minimal forum fees—and won an enforceable order. Bottom line: Access to courts is determined, to a growing degree, by a person’s wealth—not by their need. (Thanks to Alan for this lead, here. )

Working with Advanced Cancer

Many people with advanced cancer still want to work. A new study finds that about one-third of patients with metastatic cancer, under age 65, continue to work. Dr. Michael Hassett, a researcher at Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who wasn't involved in the study, said that “[p]atients may continue to work because they have to maintain their income and/or health care insurance coverage. Others may get a sense of normalcy from working, they enjoy their jobs, or they benefit from the time they spend with co-workers.” Dave Benton, pictured above, anchored WCIA news until a few days before he died with brain cancer. He-- and others who work through terminal cancer-- inspire us, as do their generous employers. For more, read here.

Incentive to Cheat by Misclassifying a Worker

Before Congress and states raise taxes, how about getting employers who cheat to pay employment-related taxes? See this U.S. Department of Labor report. For a typical worker whose annual income is $43,007, an employer can save $3,710 in employment taxes by misclassifying this person as an independent contractor. To illustrate: This type of cheating cost Texas $1.2 billion a year in employment-related taxes. See here. 

Misguided Faculty Resolution Opposes Criminal Background Checks

Too many employers indiscriminately require job applicants to disclose criminal convictions. This has an adverse effect on minority applicants—and more importantly, does not inquire as to the nature of the offense, how long ago it occurred, and how it relates to the job today. Thus, a person’s pot-possession or DUI or disorderly conduct conviction can prevent them from being considered for a job. The AFL-CIO— the main federation of American labor unions— favors a public policy that “bans the box,” and instead, allows employers to conduct a background check only after the individual has been selected for hiring. The AFL-CIO position states: ‘“Fair chance’ means policies like postponing background checks until later in the hiring process, so applicants can be judged by their qualifications first. It means weighing relevant factors, such as the age of the offense, its relatedness to the job and evidence of rehabilitation, before rejecting a qualified applicant because of a past record. Through executive action, the president can transform the federal government into a model employer for people with records.” 

UIUC has adopted the exact policy for faculty and staff that is favored by the American labor movement. It mandates a “criminal background check must be conducted after the selected candidate accepts a written contingent offer but prior to beginning employment.” If there is a conviction history, a campus committee must make “an individualized assessment of the conviction history and the job responsibilities in order to determine if the criminal conviction poses a level of risk that might preclude clearing the candidate for employment in the position, considering, but not limited to: i. the nature and seriousness of the underlying offense/conduct; ii. the relatedness of the offense/conduct to the position being sought; iii. the length of time that has elapsed since the conviction, end of sentence, and the offense/conduct, and iv. demonstrated rehabilitative efforts.” A faction of the UIUC Senate remains impervious to the reasonableness of the new policy. Their resolution—which passed on a no-confidence vote— claims “it is inequitable to include considerations of arrest or conviction record of an otherwise successful applicant.” By implication, they also oppose the policy endorsed by America’s largest and most progressive labor unions. To compare the UIUC and AFL-CIO policies, click on the UIUC Policy and the AFL-CIO Policy.

Research Update on “Boob Jobs in the Share Economy”

My study, "Boob Jobs in the Share Economy," focuses on 74 cases involving exotic dancers (all but one involve women). In these cases, the dancers are suing for wages (including overtime). The problem? Clubs don't pay them anything, and treat them as independent contractors. They work for tips. Dancers win more than 90% of the rulings. Why care about them? Apart from objectification of their sexuality, women are often forced into “landlord-tenant” relationships in order to rent dressing rooms and also stage time. Some pay a fee to enter the club each night. They frequently are required to pay tips to house moms, DJs, emcees, bar tenders, and bouncers. In other words, they don't earn wages and they are forced to pay their co-workers! Some earn "negative wages" (quote from a lawsuit) on a nightly basis.

I argue that this exploitation is indicative of a growing phenomenon where businesses shift costs to workers while avoiding employment taxes and other legal duties that are part of the formal employment relationship. In other words, the strip club is a more advanced form of Uber-style exploitation, where a woman’s body is treated as a just-in-time corporate asset to be shared with paying customers. Will you be the next asset who is objectified in a work relationship?

Keep Your Boss Out of Your Genes … Please

Would you use an online dating service from your employer? Of course not. It’s too personal ... none of your employer’s business. So why would people sign-up for genetic screening from their employer? Because it’s available and partially funded by your company? Because you cannot access genetic screening on your own by contacting these same providers? 

Today’s Wall Street Journal (click here) has a mostly positive view of this emerging employee benefit. For instance: “Twenty-nine Jackson Laboratory employees took ‘spit tests,’ sending small amounts of saliva in vials to be tested for variations on three genes—DRD2, an ‘eating behavior’ gene; MC4R an ‘appetite’ gene and FTO, a ‘body fat’ gene—associated with higher body fat and weight.” So far, I’m not impressed. The boss wants you to lose weight because it could cost him. He’s not testing you for cancer. The following is really disturbing: “Along with test results, Newtopia offers coaching based on the findings. For example, the company would advise more high-intensity exercise for a person whose ‘body fat’ gene suggests they are likely to retain fat.” Bottom line: Keep your boss out of your love life and your genes.

Menards: 60% Pay Cut to Managers Who Lose Union Drives

My interview with Bloomberg News is here (click to read). 

Will You Need to Incorporate to Work?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics groups self-employed workers into two categories: incorporated and unincorporated. Their most recent estimate shows there are 5.3 million self-employed workers who are incorporated, and 9.5 million self-employed workers who are unincorporated. See here (at bottom of data table). Given the growing reliance on “contract work” (see Uber)— and the increasing leverage that corporations have over many workers— will firms insist that individuals incorporate before they perform work for the organization? It would be a great way to shift the risks that inhere with employment—injury on the job, accidents and intentional torts by workers, sickness and injury, and so on— to the incorporated individual. And, it would add false allure to the idea of being your own boss. 

New Labor Laws for Gig Economy? Sure, If More Wealth Disparity Is the Goal

Greg Ip, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, is wrong when he writes about Uber’s legal problems: “The controversy highlights a little-appreciated gap in the U.S. economy: its labor laws and institutions haven’t kept up with how the needs of businesses and workers have changed. In the U.S., you are either an employee, or you aren’t. What the U.S. needs, a new study says, is a new category for gig-economy jobs that blends elements of both.” See here. For now, these rebuttal points: The latest take-down of unions in the American economy paves the way to emerging state legislation that allows Uber and similar firms to structure work as something other than employment. Second, the Uber trend exacerbates growing wealth inequality. Uber brags that its drivers make $20 per hour—but they fail to factor in the cost of owning, maintaining, and insuring a vehicle. And they don’t factor in the 100% cost of the Social Security tax that is borne by their contract drivers (instead of a 50%-50% split on the Social Security contribution). Third, Uber’s market capitalization is now over $50 billion—a figure that signals that shareholders and lenders expect to extract enormous profits from this arrangement. If the employment relationship is so overtaxed that employers want to shed jobs for this reason (a valid complaint!), why not tax jobs less and other things more—for example, consumption of goods and services above and beyond the basics of life (e.g., groceries)? 

A Precedent for Prejudice: Chae Chen Ping v. U.S. (1889)

Donald Trump’s desire to prevent all Muslims from entering the U.S. has a shameful precedent. The excerpt below captures the events that led up to enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the U.S. to prevent all Chinese workers from entering the country. If a Muslim Exclusion Act is passed into law, will the current Supreme Court follow this precedent? That is the question posed here.

In December, 1878, the convention which framed the present constitution of California, being in session, took this subject up, and memorialized congress upon it, setting forth, in substance, that the presence of Chinese laborers had a baneful effect upon the material interests of the state, and upon public morals; that their immigration was in numbers approaching the character of an Oriental invasion, and was a menace to our civilization; that the discontent from this cause was not confined to any political party, or to any class or nationality, but was well nigh universal; that they retained the habits and customs of their own country, and in fact constituted a Chinese settlement within the state, without any interest in our country or its institutions; and praying congress to take measures to prevent their further immigration. This memorial was presented to congress in February, 1879. So urgent and constant were the prayers for relief against existing and anticipated evils, both from the public authorities of the Pacific coast and from private individuals, that congress was impelled to act on the subject. A statute was accordingly passed appropriating money to send commissioners to China to act with our minister there in negotiating and concluding by treaty a settlement of such matters of interest between the two governments as might be confided to them. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation....  

Toll in Workplace Violence: 749 Deaths in 2014

The U.S. Department of Labor collects data on workplace deaths. One category: violence. In 2014, 749 people died at work as a result of a violent attack. The data for these deaths—and others is searchable here.

Lessons About Anti-Immigrant “Fever”

The governor of Texas is threatening to sue a private agency that has resettled 180 Syrians since the civil war began in 2011, if the group continues to aid Syrians who are approved for refugee status by U.S. authorities. Governor Abbott cites safety concerns.

In 1942, Taroa Takahashi— a Japanese immigrant who was lawfully in the U.S. as a permanent resident—was taken to a U.S. concentration camp by military authorities. When he returned to his home in California, he was barred by a state law that denied non-citizens the right to fish. Takahashi was a commercial fisherman. He sued, claiming that the California denied him the right to equal protection under its laws. The Supreme Court agreed with him, and struck down the anti-immigrant law. Here is an excerpt from Justices Murphy and Rutledge:

The statute in question is but one more manifestation of the anti-Japanese fever [emphasis added] which has been evident in California in varying degrees since the turn of the century…. For some years prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, these protagonists of intolerance had been leveling unfounded accusations and innuendoes against Japanese fishing crews operating off the coast of California. These fishermen numbered about a thousand and most of them had long resided in that state. It was claimed that they were engaged not only in fishing but in espionage and other illicit activities on behalf of the Japanese Government. As war with Japan approached and finally became a reality, these charges were repeated with increasing vigor. Yet full investigations by appropriate authorities failed to reveal any competent supporting evidence; not even one Japanese fisherman was arrested for alleged espionage. Such baseless accusations can only be viewed as an integral part of the long campaign to undermine the reputation of persons of Japanese background and to discourage their residence in California…. During the height of this racial storm in 1943, numerous anti-Japanese bills were considered by the California legislators…. We should not blink at the fact that Section 990, as now written, is a discriminatory piece of legislation having no relation whatever to any constitutionally cognizable interest of California. It is directed in spirit and in effect solely against aliens of Japanese birth. It denies them commercial fishing rights not because they threaten the success of any conservation program, not because their fishing activities constitute a clear and present danger to the welfare of California or of the nation, but only because they are of Japanese stock, a stock which has had the misfortune to arouse antagonism among certain powerful interests. The case is here.

Donald Trump in Germany

A friend asks whether Donald Trump would be to blame if harm came to people he targets, e.g., Muslims, Mexicans, the disabled, and women. It's a great question. For now, consider how Germany limits certain forms of speech. Section 130 of the German Criminal Code outlaws "incitement of popular hatred." This crime consist of inciting hatred against parts of the population. For example, it is unlawful to refer publicly to ethnic groups as "maggots" or "freeloaders." This does sound like something Donald Trump would say. New Zealand has a Racial Disharmony law. It sounds Orwellian, yes; and it makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." These laws seem to deprive people of the right to be stupid-- even, if there is such a thing, a right to hate others. On other hand, what nation has done more than Germany to accommodate Syrian refugees? Do laws that criminalize hate speech lead to a more tolerant society? Donald Trump might be arrested in Germany under Section 130; in the U.S., he might be the next President. If speech laws slow or prevent the spread of hatred, should we consider how to adapt them to the American context-- or is this too PC? Personally, I favor some attempt to emulate the German model. 

In Defense of Limits on Speech

The repeated portrayal of Planned Parenthood as a killer and purveyor of fetal parts may have pushed a sick man to murder people in Colorado Springs. The LaQuan McDonald protests were peaceful, symbolic and an excellent example of voicing collective anger. Now comes word that a University of Illinois-Chicago student posted an online threat to shoot and kill 16 white students at the University of Chicago. He said: “"This is my only warning. At 10AM Monday morning, I'm going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. I will be armed with an M-4 carbine and two desert eagles, all fully loaded. I will execute approximately 16 white male students and or staff, which is the same number of time McDonald was killed." His online post was specific and indicative of intent to kill-- though he might say, later, it was meant as symbolic expression. The heated rhetoric on campuses today (and politics, more generally) show some tendency for inciting forms of speech to have dangerous consequences. My Notre Dame Law Review article (see here) concluded: “My research shows that when a university makes a reasonable prediction that students or faculty would feel intimidated by personally abusive or demeaning speech, courts support actions that promote a campus climate of tolerance."

Ruling on “Fried Chicken and Watermelon”: Do Picketers Have a Right to Express Racist Views?

When workers strike, the law affords their speech a high degree of protection. Often, picket lines— invariably in public spaces, such as sidewalks and roadsides— become raucous, with taunts directed at replacement workers. When taunts become physically intimidating, a striker loses protection of the law. But what if a striker calls replacements “niggers”? In a 2006 decision, Airo Die Casting, the NLRB said that the speech was protected. In 2011, a different case arose. Cooper Tire locked out employees, and hired replacements. The company fired a picketing white worker for making references to "fried chicken and watermelon" as a group of mostly black replacement workers crossed the picket line. Cooper said it must provide replacement workers with an atmosphere that is free of racial harassment. The case is now heading to the NLRB in Washington D.C. The United Steel Workers points out that a ruling against the picketer here could mean that future pickets who shout "fuck" (and equivalent expressions) could be fired for sexual harassment. Lost in the discussion… the divisive effect of a bargaining lockout. The company did this because the union failed to agree to a contract—and the company contributed to a racial divide by locking out a mostly white workforce and replacing them with a mostly black workforce.

What Is “Anger Security”? How Ideologues “Think” Today

Last week, I was interviewed by the UIUC Media Bureau, and shared my professional views on Syrian immigration (see here). Today, I received a harsh and personal e-mail from someone on the political right. Earlier this year, I received even harsher emails from people on the opposite end of the political spectrum from today’s correspondent. These people were upset with my view that the First Amendment does not protect faculty speech that directs personal intimidation to a group of students (e.g., in that instance, Twitter attacks that framed Jewish college students as future killers). Well, here is today’s note. I have emphasized the author’s Freudian slip. Below it, I share an example of anger from the political left:

Michael, Your article on the governor's powers to allow our disallow Syrian refugees to take up residence in their respective states was informative.  However, your closing statement on the "wall of fear" was unnecessary and uncalled for.  It is this exact level of liberal lunacy that public schools and universities try to indoctrinate our children with that is the real reason this country is going to lose its strength anger security.  My guess is that you are tenured and are not concerned about consequences by regurgitating garbage liberal agendas to our youth.  Which brings up another atrocity in the university setting which is that of tenure.  You should be allowed to instruct our children based on your performance and ability and not on your amount of time held at an institution spent indoctrinating.  We are in an education crisis with the likes of instructors like you.  We don't pay for you to educate our children with your opinion.  We pay you to educate our children with the facts.  Extremely fed up.

What a miserable shyster you are. You, Wise, Chris Kennedy, and Cary Nelson are utterly depraved.

Native American Casinos and Union Avoidance

Native Americans are among the nation’s most disadvantaged and oppressed groups; so, it makes little sense that they are allied with House Republicans. But they are united in a bill to remove Indian casinos from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Earlier this week, the House passed a bill on a 249-177 to prevent the NLRB from hearing petitions for union elections or claims of unfair anti-union conduct filed by workers at tribal businesses on Indian land. By the way, Indian casinos pocketed $28.5 billion in gaming revenue in 2014, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission…. Not enough to share, however, with their mostly Native American workforce. 

Is Your Work Schedule More Important Than … Everything Else?

The Wall Street Journal has a techie article that celebrates the “uberization” of more traditional types of jobs. Author Christopher Mims reports on Gigwalk, “which started out as more or less the Uber of people who check on the work of merchandisers like Mr. Gainer.” Mims gushes: “The result inside Crossmark, which employs tens of thousands of associates, is something unexpected but surprisingly effective. It is a labor marketplace rapidly taking over tasks that used to be accomplished by traditional management. Just like Uber, the result is a flexible pool of employees who have some say over when they work—and who are tasked—according to their location, skills and availability.” Certainly, the freedom to control one’s schedule is important. But what is lost in the transaction? 1. Co-workers. 2. Training and development. 3. Employer sponsored health insurance. 4. Minimum wage. 5. Overtime pay. 6. Paid vacation. 7. Sick leave. 8. Social Security, unless you, the “contractor," pay all of the work-related contribution. 9. Employer retirement plan. 10. Employer profit-sharing plan. 11. Access to a union. 12. Worker’s compensation, when you’re injured on the job. Likely, I forgot other important elements of a traditional job. The uberization phenomenon has particular appeal to younger workers, who sometimes cannot see that, down the road, their bodies will falter or fail, their income will be inadequate, their bargaining power will shrink to nil—and their cell phones will not provide the companionship and support of a work culture and colleagues. 

Don’t Like Unions? You Might Like This

You probably have contracts for credit cards, cable TV, cell phone, mortgage—and employment— where you are required to waive access to courts and agree to arbitration. The company with superior bargaining power gets to dictate terms. Worse, its competitors have the same contracts. Compounding this, these mandatory agreements often require you to waive a class action case. So, suppose you’re getting dinged for $100 in one of the relationships, and you’re unhappy about it. Answer: take it to arbitration. Right … you’ll hired a lawyer for several thousand dollars to win your $100 case. That’s where class actions can be useful. Most courts uphold waivers of class actions. Little guy loses here. Now, the NLRB has ruled (again) that American Express Co violated the concerted activity provisions of the National Labor Relations Act by requiring requiring workers to waive access to class actions in mandatory arbitration cases. It’s a win for employees at American Express, who were contesting the company’s failure to pay for overtime and meal breaks. The ruling has potential to be a win for everyone who is forced to waive a class action in arbitration. American Express will appeal; and they will likely win because of the caselaw in this area, which has lost sight of the fact that arbitration is supposed to a substitute for a judicial forum— and not a kangaroo court. 

Remember Rashidi Wheeler

Rashidi Wheeler died while playing football for Northwestern University. During a “voluntary” practice that may have violated NCAA rules, he was running rigorous sprints with a fellow player on a Northwestern practice field. A videotape caught the moment he collapsed. At the time, a Northwestern coach was seen on the tape timing other players. According to Linda Will, Wheeler’s mother, her son died because Northwestern did not having qualified trainers and medical staff on hand to treat his fatal asthma attack. Wheeler had a lifelong problem with asthma, a condition that Northwestern knew or should have known.

Wheeler’s mother sued the school for her son’s wrongful death. Northwestern stonewalled her attempts to find answers to her questions. Who scheduled the “voluntary” practice? Why was no medical help present if players were expected to practice? Why were Rashidi’s medical records destroyed? Years later, Northwestern offered Will $16 million to settle her lawsuit. She refused it. In an L.A. Times article, she said: “Everyone’s entitled to their day in court. Northwestern doesn’t want to go to court, because it doesn’t want all of the atrocities and pain and suffering it inflicted upon my Rashidi to be revealed. I’m not willing to devalue and diminish Rashidi by shutting up and taking the $16 million.”

Linda Will lost her case when, in an extraordinary ruling, a Cook County judge appointed a guardian for her other children and the guardian accepted the cash settlement. Will left the courthouse embittered: “I will fight until I obtain justice, and then I'll go away and shut up.” Ten years have passed since the court imposed the settlement. Northwestern has not answered any questions nor been held accountable. Soon, Illinois will play Northwestern in Chicago. As it should be, Illinois’ failure to shield football players from abusive coaching and medical practices will likely be part of the story-line for the game. Pat Fitzgerald was a defensive backs coach in 2001 for Northwestern, the year that Rashidi Wheeler, a strong safety, died. Was he the coach timing wind sprints on that videotape? Is the tape available? Hopefully, a brave reporter will ask Coach Fitzgerald, “What really happened to Rashidi Wheeler, and what can you do to provide answers?”

Fear at Work: The Impact of One Harassing Incident

Recently, ProfLERoy posted a story of a federal court ruling that dismissed an employment discrimination lawsuit from a woman who was “flashed” by a male co-worker. Due to privacy laws, I am redacting and revising a student’s account of sexual harassment, except for the student's core reactions. The contrast to the court’s opinion in the flasher case speaks for itself. “I was working in retail.  One day, I was putting away merchandise when a man walked past me and said something. I didn’t quite hear him, so I turned to see if he needed help. He repeated what he said but it was not a question about the merchandise, it was a sexual comment. I was in shock. I felt so violated. I quickly walked to receiving, the only place in the store that customers were not allowed, sunk to the floor and cried. . . . At the time, I accepted that. After that incident, I felt anxious at work for weeks. I felt like every time I was alone, someone was going to sexually harass me. That was when I realized that I didn’t want anyone else to feel that way. I wanted to help people in my workplace feel safe.” How I wish this student was the judge in the Mississippi flasher case.

“Hawk” Hazards: Will You Be Injured? Or Run Someone Over with Your Car?

The UIUC campus has more and more students with IO Hawks running around. These are akin to electric-powered skateboards. Here’s the problem: Students are using them in congested areas, such as hallways that are mostly filled with others who are walking with 20-30 pounds of books on their backs. These walkers cannot adjust quickly-- nor can disabled or older people. Doors open suddenly. Real possibilities for injuries here. I have not encountered a reckless Hawk rider; but the whole point is to move faster than the crowd. So far, I have not encountered multiple Hawkers in the same hallway or crowded sidewalk … but that is my real concern. We already have bike-car-pedestrian conflicts on campus-- on rare occasion, with tragic outcomes. Now this? I sent campus safety a simple message expressing these concerns and received a thoughtful reply.

Breaking Illinois' Impasse: Listen to Downstate Republican Lawmakers

The best article on the Illinois impasse is written by Tom Kacich, here.. He explains that downstate Republican lawmakers are bracing their supporters for a tax hike, and for unavoidable assistance to Chicago Public Schools. And they note that although it might feel good to make Chicago the 51^st state, the reality is that we all need Chicago to avoid a disaster. These pragmatic lawmakers go on to say that a compromise won’t have any take-aways from public sector unions. So far, it sounds like it’s all-Democratic. Not so. They believe that workers comp will be seriously overhauled. Ditto tort reforms. They suggest that term limits and/or legislative redrawing of districts is on the table. Judge for yourself. This looks like a compromise; it entails structural reform; it addresses the near-death spiral of the State’s finances; it doesn’t blame one group for all the problems; and it is painful for everyone, including lawmakers. I vote yes.

Menorah Vandal Case Closed … Questions Open

As of 11:00 a.m. this morning, the TV monitor in the Champaign County Court showed an 11:00 a.m. hearing for Max Kristy, charged with a Class 3 felony for vandalizing an 8-foot tall menorah at a local Jewish Center. The case was never called. That’s because it was quietly settled at the last minute. Apparently, Kristy pleaded down to a misdemeanor, with 25 hours of community service. The case is closed, but these questions are now open. 1. Was Kristy overcharged with a felony? He was known to be a first-time offender, and 20 years-old. 2. If he was charged properly, why did the case settle so much in Kristy’s favor? Why not more service? Why not a short, suspended sentence, with no time served but a stronger record? Why not an apology to the Jewish Center? 3. Why were members of the Jewish Center not consulted for their view, as is often the case where there are victims in non-violent offenses? 4. Why is the truth suppressed in this case? Kristy said he was drunk at 6:00 a.m. and was simply giving a Jewish friend an 8-foot tall menorah for a gift. Why wasn’t his version of the facts put to a cross examination, just for the sake of exposing this implausible story? 5. Why is vandalism of a religious symbol treated like it's vandalism to a street corner stop sign? Was this a crime against an 8-foot tall piece of metal, or did it have symbolic significance? We’ll never know. The menorah in this picture sheds light. The settlement in this case casts a shadow.

The End of the Employment Relationship? Research Update

Want a ride from the airport? There’s an app for that. Someone to visit with your elderly parent? There’s an app. And so on. I am collecting more than 1,000 court cases since 2000 involving claims by workers that they were misclassified as independent contractors—drivers, cable installers, security officers, exotic dancers, janitors … and others. Early results show that workers win most of these lawsuits—meaning they must be paid for overtime, minimum wages, out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., gas money for drivers). But these outcomes don’t seem to be changing the inexorable drift away from the employment relationship to app-driven “project” work. Downsides? 1. These workers are on their own for Social Security taxes—no employer contribution. Expect even more under-funded retirements. 2. No workers comp if an individual is hurt while doing her job. 3. No employer-sponsored health insurance. 4. No possibility to form a union. And then there are less visible effects. We will have fewer lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses, carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other craftspeople and professionals who are selected, trained, weeded-out, promoted, and socialized by an organization. Instead, various crafts, professions, and occupations will be reduced to one-off exchanges, conducted on our cell phones. The employment relationship is not part of the law of nature. My hunch is that employment will recede along the lines of unions. The question is: Will we, as a society, recognize the long-term damage that results from a casual form of assigning work?

Crain’s Chicago Business: Rauner “Union” Plan Would Save 0.74%-- “Not Much More Than a Rounding Error”

When Bruce Rauner promised to “shake things up,” he really meant to “destroy unions in Illinois.” One key idea in the turnaround plan is to eliminate prevailing wage. This term means that public construction contracts must pay the equivalent of union wages. In theory, the governor’s argument makes sense: Illinois seems to be overpaying. But Crain’s Chicago Business says: “just for the sake of argument, let's take the proponents at their word on this particular topic. A June, 2014 study conducted by the Anderson Economic Group for the far-right Illinois Policy Institute, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Chamber and the Illinois Black Chamber found that eliminating the prevailing wage would've saved local school districts $126.4 million in 2011 (that's in 2013 dollars, by the way). According to the state's Commission on Governmental Forecasting and Accountability, local school districts extended (billed) $16.4 billion in property taxes in 2011. Adjust that 2011 amount to 2013 dollars to even it out with the Anderson study and we get $16.98 billion. So, even if every single local school district throughout Illinois immediately stopped paying prevailing wage rates on construction projects (not gonna happen) and even if eliminating the prevailing wage does indeed save as much as the Anderson study projected (doubtful), school districts could've saved a grand total of 0.74 percent of their property tax budgets, which is not much more than a rounding error. Now figure, in reality, savings of at most half that amount and we're looking at about a third of a percentage point. That's not even a rounding error.” Again, this analysis is from a major business paper—not a shill for labor. The article is here.