Workplace Hazards and Violations

Latest story

113 Shares107 Views

Amazon’s Fight With Unions Heads to Whole Foods Market

by

Whole Foods workers in Philadelphia are voting on whether to form the first union in the Amazon-owned chain. The company is pushing back.At a sprawling Whole Foods Market in Philadelphia, a battle is brewing. The roughly 300 workers are set to vote on Monday on whether to form the first union in Amazon’s grocery business.Several store employees said they hoped a union could negotiate higher starting wages, above the current rate of $16 an hour. They’re also aiming to secure health insurance for part-time workers and protections against at-will firing.There is a broader goal, too: to inspire a wave of organizing across the grocery chain, adding to union drives among warehouse workers and delivery drivers that Amazon is already combating.“If all the different sectors that make it work can demand a little bit more, have more control, have more of a voice in the workplace — that could be a start of chipping away at the power that Amazon has, or at least putting it in check,” said Ed Dupree, an employee in the produce department. Mr. Dupree has worked at Whole Foods since 2016 and previously worked at an Amazon warehouse.Management sees things differently. “A union is not needed at Whole Foods Market,” the company said in a statement, adding that it recognized employees’ right to “make an informed decision.”Workers said that since they went public with their union drive last fall, store managers had ramped up their monitoring of employees, hung up posters with anti-union messaging in break rooms and held meetings that cast unions in a negative light.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Logging Is the Deadliest Job, but Still an Oregon Way of Life

    by

    In southwestern Oregon, semi trucks loaded with logs snake along roads through dark, lush forests of Douglas fir. The logging industry has shaped and sustained families here for generations.A steady demand for lumber and a lack of other well-paying jobs in rural parts of the state have made logging one of the most promising career paths.It also comes with grave risk.A glossary of logging terms includes an entry for heavy broken branches that can fall without warning: widowmakers.Inside the Deadliest Job in AmericaMostly employed in densely forested pockets of the Pacific Northwest and the South, loggers have the highest rate of fatal on-the-job injuries of any civilian occupation in the nation, outpacing roofers, hunters and underground mining machine operators.About 100 of every 100,000 logging workers die from work injuries, compared with four per 100,000 for all workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Logs stacked for shipment at a port in North Bend, Ore.“There is a mix of physical factors — heavy equipment and, of course, the massive trees,” said Marissa Baker, a professor of occupational health at the University of Washington who has researched the logging industry. “Couple that with steep terrain and unforgiving weather and the rural aspect of the work, and it leads to great danger.”In the most rural stretches of Oregon, where swaths have been scarred by the clear-cutting of trees, many workers decide the risk is worth it. Most loggers here earn around $29 an hour. And average timber industry wages are 17 percent higher than local private-sector wages, according to a recent report from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.Logging operates mostly year round, with workers usually bouncing among companies — sometimes called outfits — where pay can vary according to the specific job that needs to be done. But the industry has declined steeply since the 1990s, partly because of competition from other countries, including Brazil and Canada, and years of legal battles as conservationists seek to limit logging in old-growth forests.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How Trump’s Immigration Plans Could Affect the Economy

    by

    Expelling noncitizens on a mass scale is likely to raise prices on goods and services and lower employment rates for U.S. workers, many economists say.The wave of migrants who arrived during the Biden administration fueled some of the anger that propelled Donald J. Trump back to power. They also offset a labor shortage, putting a damper on inflation.With the next administration vowing to seal the border and carry out the largest deportation program in American history, those economic forces could reverse — depending on the degree to which Mr. Trump can fulfill those promises.Mr. Trump’s newly appointed “border czar,” Tom Homan, has said that the administration would start with the immigrants who have committed crimes. There are not nearly enough of those to amount to removals on a mass scale, however, and Vice President-elect JD Vance has also said that all 11 million undocumented immigrants should prepare to leave. “If you are in this country illegally in six months, pack your bags, because you’re going home,” Mr. Vance said in September.The numbers could rise by another 2.7 million if the new administration revokes several types of temporary humanitarian protection, as the Trump adviser Stephen Miller previewed last year. On top of that, millions of undocumented residents live with U.S.-born children or green card holders who could end up leaving the country as well.There are logistical, legal, diplomatic and — even though Mr. Trump has said there is “no price tag” he wouldn’t direct the government to pay — fiscal obstacles to expelling millions of people who would rather stay. (According to the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for immigrants, it would cost $315 billion to arrest, detain, and deport all 13.3 million living in the United States illegally or under a revocable temporary status.)That’s why forecasting a precise impact is impossible at this point. But if Mr. Trump accomplishes anything close to what he has pledged, many economists expect higher prices on goods and services and possibly lower employment rates for American workers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Is Expected to Upend Biden Labor Policies Favoring Unions

    by

    After gains by organized labor under President Biden, a second Trump administration is likely to change course on regulation and enforcement.Joseph R. Biden Jr. promised to be the most pro-labor president in history. He embraced unions more overtly than his predecessors in either party, and filled his administration with union supporters.Labor seemed to respond accordingly. Filings for unionization elections spiked to their highest level in a decade, as did union victories. There were breakthroughs at companies like Starbucks and Amazon, and unions prevailed in organizing a major foreign auto plant in the South. A United Automobile Workers walkout yielded substantial contract gains — and images of Mr. Biden joining a picket line.As Donald J. Trump prepares to retake the White House, labor experts expect the legal landscape for labor to turn sharply in another direction.Based on Mr. Trump’s first term and his comments during the campaign — including his praise for Tesla’s chief executive, Elon Musk, for what he said was Mr. Musk’s willingness to fire striking workers — these experts say the new administration is likely to bring fewer challenges to employers who fight unions. “There will be a concerted effort to repeal pro-worker N.L.R.B. precedents,” said Heidi Shierholz, a senior Labor Department official during the Obama administration, referring to the National Labor Relations Board.Experts like Ms. Shierholz, who is now president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, said they also expected the Trump administration to ease up on enforcing safety rules, to narrow eligibility for overtime pay and to make it harder for gig workers to gain status as employees.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

    by

    In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Will Automation Replace Jobs? Port Workers May Strike Over It.

    by

    A contract covering longshore workers on the East and Gulf Coasts will expire at the end of September, but talks have been stalled over the use of equipment that can function without human operators.When a dockworkers’ union broke off contract talks with management in June, raising the likelihood of a strike at more than a dozen ports on the East and Gulf Coasts that could severely disrupt the supply chain this fall, it was not over wages, pensions or working conditions. It was about a gate through which trucks enter a small port in Mobile, Ala.The International Longshoremen’s Association, which has more than 47,000 members, said it had discovered that the gate was using technology to check and let in trucks without union workers, which it said violated its labor contract.“We will never allow automation to come into our union and try to put us out of work as long as I’m alive,” said Harold J. Daggett, the union’s president and chief negotiator in talks with the United States Maritime Alliance, a group of companies that move cargo at ports.The I.L.A., which represents workers at economically crucial ports in New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia and Texas, has long resisted automation because it can lead to job losses.Longshoremen have grim memories of how past innovation reduced employment at the docks. Shipping containers, introduced in the 1960s, allowed ports to move goods with fewer workers. “You don’t have to pay pensions to robots,” said Brian Jones, a foreman at the Port of Philadelphia, who said he’d vote for a strike if it came to it. He began working at the port in 1974, when bananas from Costa Rica were unloaded box by box. Asked why he was still working at 73, Mr. Jones said, “I like the action, and the money doesn’t hurt.”Workers throughout the economy are worried that technology will eliminate their jobs, but at the ports it threatens one of the few blue-collar jobs that can pay more than $100,000. The United States has done less to automate port operations than countries like China, the Netherlands and Singapore. But the technology is now advancing more quickly, especially on the West Coast.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Farm Workers Union Battles With California Grower, Wonderful Nurseries

    by

    Wonderful Nurseries, owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has sued the state to overturn a labor organizing law championed by the United Farm Workers.The allegations ricocheted through the agricultural fields and into a Central Valley courthouse, where one of California’s most powerful companies and an iconic union were trading charges of deception and coercion in a fight over worker representation.Some farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries — part of the Wonderful Company, the conglomerate behind famous brands of pomegranate juice and pistachios, as well as Fiji Water — said they had been duped into signing cards to join a union. On the other side, the United Farm Workers, the union formed in the 1960s by labor figures including Cesar Chavez, contends that the influential company, owned by the Los Angeles billionaires and powerhouse Democratic donors Stewart and Lynda Resnick, is trying to thwart the will of workers through intimidation and coercion.For months, the back and forth has played out before the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which arbitrates labor fights between workers and growers, and in a courthouse not far from Wonderful’s sprawling fields.In May, the company filed a legal challenge against the state that could overturn a 2022 law that made it easier for farmworkers to take part in unionization votes.After vetoing a previous version over procedural concerns, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure following public pressure from President Biden and Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker. The U.F.W. heralded the bill’s enactment as a critical victory, but several big growers said that it would allow union organizers to unfairly influence the process.The law paved the way for farmworkers to vote for union representation by signing union authorization cards, a process known simply as card check. Its passage coincided with an era of greater mobilization to unionize workers during the pandemic and a willingness to press demands for better working conditions and respect from employers, said Victor Narro, project director and labor studies professor at the U.C.L.A. Labor Center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Caterpillar Factory in Mexico Draws Complaint of Labor Abuses

    by

    The Biden administration declined to pursue a union complaint of labor abuses in Mexico, raising new concerns about offshoring.Over the past few years, as major manufacturers have announced plans to ramp up production in Mexico, labor unions have raised concerns that American jobs will be sent abroad.Now, the concerns have prompted the United Automobile Workers union, a prominent backer of President Biden, to criticize an administration decision not to pursue accusations of labor abuses by a Mexican subsidiary of Caterpillar, the agriculture equipment maker.In late June, the administration informed a group of unions that it would not pursue a complaint that the subsidiary had retaliated against striking union members by making it difficult for them to find alternative employment, a form of blacklisting.The government’s ability to police such violations, under a provision of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, is meant to reduce the incentive for American employers to move jobs to Mexico in search of weaker labor protections. The U.A.W. argues that, by declining to use its authority under the trade agreement in this case, the Biden administration may be encouraging companies to relocate work.Caterpillar workers in Mexico “face harassment and blacklisting for daring to stand up, with no help from the U.S.M.C.A.,” Shawn Fain, the president of the U.A.W., said in a statement. The U.A.W. was among several labor groups that brought the complaint.The Biden administration would not comment on the complaint, but pointed to two dozen other cases it had pursued under the trade agreement. Caterpillar did not respond to requests for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Is Fined Nearly $6 Million Over Warehouse Work Quotas

    by

    California officials cited failures to disclose productivity requirements at two locations. The company said it would appeal.A California labor regulator said on Tuesday that it had fined Amazon nearly $6 million for thousands of violations of a safety law that took effect in 2022.The measure, known as the Warehouse Quotas Law, lets employees request written explanations of any productivity quotas that apply to them, as well as explanations of any discipline they may face in failing to meet the quotas.The state labor commissioner’s office said Amazon violated the law more than 59,000 times at two Southern California warehouses between October and March.The system that Amazon used in the two warehouses “is exactly the kind of system that the Warehouse Quotas Law was put in place to prevent,” the labor commissioner, Lilia García-Brower, said in a statement.An Amazon spokeswoman said in a statement that the company had appealed the penalties and denied that the company used “fixed quotas.” The spokeswoman, Maureen Lynch Vogel, said that “individual performance is evaluated over a long period of time, in relation to how the entire site’s team is performing,” and that workers can “review their performance whenever they wish.”The California law also proscribes quotas that interfere with employees’ ability to take state-mandated breaks or use the bathroom, or that prevent employers from following state health and safety laws.Experts have said the law was among the first in the country to regulate warehouse quotas that are monitored by algorithms and to require employers to make the quotas transparent to workers. The penalties announced on Tuesday are the largest issued under the law.The labor commissioner’s office said its investigation had been assisted by a labor advocacy group, the Warehouse Worker Resource Center, which issued a statement quoting a worker at one of the penalized Amazon facilities who described significant pressure to hit quotas.“If you don’t scan enough items you will get written up,” said the worker, Carrie Stone. “This happened to me. I got written up for not making rate. They said I missed by one point, but I didn’t even know what the target was.”Other Amazon workers raised similar concerns while the Legislature debated the bill in 2021, and studies by labor advocacy groups have shown that Amazon has significantly higher rates of serious injury than other warehouse employers, like Walmart.The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Amazon several times in recent years for exposing workers to ergonomic injuries and over record-keeping for such injuries, and the Justice Department is investigating whether the company made false representations about its safety record when applying for loans.Amazon has cited hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of investments in safety improvements in recent years, including more than $300 million in 2021.Other states, like New York and Washington, have since enacted similar laws, and Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced a federal version last month. More