During the first few years of a public school education, young students find themselves among diverse groups of adults assigned to teach and/or provide for them. It may take some students less time than others to begin to distinguish among the many different roles played by these adults. For example, young students may not initially make a distinction between the teacher and the paraprofessional (also known as a teaching assistant). From day one, students see two adults in the room, equally providing them with instruction, guidance and love. Teachers and paraprofessionals alike provide academic expectations as well as the nurturing necessary for child development. Even when students realize the difference between the two, they still recognize the value of all educators regardless of their professional status. The same can be said of other school personnel, such as custodial, food service and clerical workers, who also play a necessary role. Without all the above doing their jobs, education would not be possible.

What takes longer for students and adults to realize is regarding inequities in compensation for these workers. What happens in the schools is a reflection on the people in the community, making everyone, whether they have children in the schools or not, somewhat responsible for the quality of education and the well-being of all students. The question is why those in salary structures outside of certified teacher pay scales find themselves at or below the poverty level.

For reference, the federal government considers a household of four people as living below the poverty level if their annual income is $25,750 or lower (before taxes). According to welfareinfo.org, that’s more than 1.6 million Georgians, or 16.9 percent of the population of the state, living in poverty last year. Closer to home, the situation is worse, with 34.1 percent of Athenians living in poverty. Too many people around us are desperately attempting to feed, clothe, shelter and provide medical care for themselves and their families. By some numbers, the economy in Athens is by certain standards thriving. The unemployment rate hovers around 3.8 percent and job growth is expected to increase nearly 50 percent over the next decade. This is partly because Athens is home to a number of employers with comparatively large work forces. The University of Georgia (9,800 employees) tops the list, followed by Piedmont Athens Regional Hospital (3,500), but in third place is the Clarke County School District (CCSD). As of January 2017, CCSD employed 2,800 people.

As the school district is a separate entity from the Athens Clarke County Unified Government, it is responsible for maintaining its own budget. The state of Georgia provides a little over 50 percent of the general fund revenue, the federal government provides almost 3 percent and the rest of the budget relies on local taxes and funds (according to the CCSD FY 2020 budget). It should be noted that 86 percent of the 2020 budget is dedicated to instruction, with classroom personnel taking up the majority. Grant money is used to fund some positions. In 2019 the federal government was responsible for 72% of the grant money obtained for positions, while the state provided the rest.

The current budget lists 179 paraprofessionals, and, depending on the school, there could be more than 200 office staff, custodians and food service workers across the district in a given year. Many of these non-teaching staff members are paid wages that place them below the poverty level. Following is a sampling of positions and salary/salary ranges according to recently posted CCSD job descriptions or the district’s Classified and Administrative Pay Scale (updated last July):

Paraprofessional-Special Education $17,747.60 – $25,854.90 / Per Year

Custodian $19,210.57 – $27,986.18 / Per Year

Food Service Worker $14,179.23 – $20,670.37 / Per Year

Academic Interventionist $18,464.60 – $26,899.44 / Per Year

Behavior Interventionist Alternative Education $18,464.60 – $26,899.44 / Per Year

For those workers providing for a family of four or more, it is simply not enough. Some are forced to seek additional employment.

According to money.us news.com, the median salary for teacher assistants across the country was $26,970 in 2018, with the range being $21,942 to $34,190. Just compensation is just that: the right thing to do.

To be fair, this sensitive issue should not be construed as a lack of will or other motivation on the part of a school district that consists of many hard-working and dedicated professionals attempting to be fiscally and compassionately responsible. The CCSD FY2020 budget shows that over the last five years some healthcare and salary increases have been given to classified staff. Clearly that’s not enough to provide all that’s needed, but it’s some evidence these staff members are not being ignored.

Also, as school budgets go, there is also a balancing act that must be performed when attempting to serve the needs of children. Other items in the budget include measures to maintain smaller class sizes at the elementary school level (long a belief that classroom size affects performance), as well as safety and security upgrades (including adding additional staff in schools). These are just two of the dynamic challenges.

Do non-teachers need more pay to survive? The answer to that is obviously yes. Solutions to problems in education cannot be made in isolation any more than a teacher can teach without the help of supporting staff. Whether we like it or not, education is a labor issue. A comprehensive review and overhaul from the top down, from the federal level to the community member, must occur, or else progress is only possible in small increments that satisfy no one.

Care about this issue? You can sign this petition to show that you support a $15/hr minimum wage for CCSD staff.

Presumably, every reasonable person knows right from wrong. But what is right and what is wrong?  When debating a subject like a workplace ethical complaint, we often run into statements like the following that stifle any chance of reaching a meaningful understanding:

• It’s he said vs. she said. 
• There are two sides to every story. 
• Ethics are too subjective.
• The law is ambiguous.
• The evidence is clear.
• It’s all hearsay. 

When it comes to whistleblowing, the accuser often assumes a greater risk due to their lack of power or resources to proceed. The accused still has a lot to lose, but calling out a superior can be daunting. With an employee who raises an ethical complaint against an employer or a coworker, the law is often overshadowed by intuitive responses, factual or not. It doesn’t help that legal reality might not coincide with popular belief. Whistleblowing is a necessary reality for the sake of freedom and justice, and how we address it is a reflection of who we are.  

Rights and protections need to be spelled out, and protecting whistleblowers is no exception. The need to protect people acting out of perceived duty to point out questionable practices has existed for a long time. Even as early as 1778, the Continental Congress recognized the need for such safeguarding, based on a case in which four sailors, at the risk of being tried as traitors, called out their commanding officer for abuses.

Over the past few decades, protections for whistleblowers have been signed into law at the federal level. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 cited, among other things, improper personnel practices. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 protects federal employees from retaliation for reporting incidents of unethical behavior. Others acts followed: the No Fear Act of 2002 (agency financial responsibility resulting from court cases), the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (clarification regarding nondisclosure agreements) and a presidential policy directive (#19, also prohibiting retaliation) signed by President Barack Obama in 2012.

Most recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 3625, the PCAOB Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019, which is presently with the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. This bill is intended to amend language of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, clarifying definitions about the origins of information, money awards, and the term “whistleblower.”

Legal protections may help increase the confidence of someone contemplating filing a claim. Andy Greenberg, in his book “The Machine Kills,” observes that technology is also speeding up the process for whistleblowing. Whereas it took Daniel Ellsberg more than a year to copy thousands of pages by hand one at a time (the Pentagon Papers), it took Chelsea Manning only a couple of months to copy hundreds of thousands of files to share with Wikileaks. 

Ellsberg faced up to 115 years in prison, and it was only because of misdeeds by the government that all charges against him were dropped in 1973. President Obama commuted  Manning’s 35-year sentence after she served seven years of it (she continues to serve time for contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case involving Wikileaks). Nonetheless, laws allow whistleblowers an opportunity to access a path freer of retaliation. 

People in government are not the only ones protected. Companies in the financial sector must comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, while the 2011 Dodge Frank laws increased the reach of protections beyond a parent company. Food workers are protected under Section 402 of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2012, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, under what’s commonly referred to as OSHA’s 20, works to protect workers in numerous industries who report violations of an environmental nature.

Protections are not only in place at the federal level. In Georgia, public employees are protected from retaliation when reporting ethical abuses due to O.C.G.A. §45-1-4, the Georgia Whistleblower Act of 1993. While these employees may not necessarily fear for their jobs, there are no guarantees that their identity will be protected. 

As for non-public employees working in Georgia, protections are not as clearly defined. Employees who work under a contract may have protections spelled out, but those who are not are considered at-will employees, which means that an employer has the right to dismiss a worker for no reason. Providing information against an employer is risky business. A number of law firms promote services to help with this challenge, encouraging people to seek legal advice should they feel compelled to move forward.

This is not to say that there is no hope for non-public workers. Private companies may and do take it upon themselves to protect all workers, both accusers and the accused. Take Pilgrim’s Pride, for example. The hatchery’s Athens location, employing about 1,500 workers, has a protocol to report abuses in place, according to Seandre Lee, the plant’s human relations manager. Employees who witness anything irregular can call the corporate office, and a protective procedure is followed. The strategy is designed with the rights of both the accuser and the accused in mind, including confidentiality. This policy was developed by corporate officials, and, according to Lee, staff members are informed of the process during new-employee orientation (the policy is even available in 20 languages). 

Maybe nobody likes a tattletale. But in a civil society, the act of whistleblowing ought to be considered a protected liberty, whether an alleged violation eventually turns out to have merit or not. Any charges must be considered respectfully and thoroughly, as both sides have a serious stake.

One has to wonder if an Uber or Lyft rider would treat a driver differently if they knew whether the driver was an employee (one who is hired by the company) or an independent contractor (one who owns and operates their own business). Most likely, the kind of labor relations the driver has with the company is far from the customer’s mind. That may change, however, due to the amount of press coverage given to recent court cases and other legal rulings related to issues between ride-hailing companies like Lyft and Uber and the people working for them.

On the surface, it doesn’t seem that it should really be anybody else’s business. After all, the employer-employee relationship is personal. And though some consumers do choose to patronize businesses based on their level of commitment to social responsibility, that’s something often explored prior to the moment the service is being rendered.

There are many reasons that people care about how workers are treated. For starters, the basic concept behind the capitalistic economic system ― which relies heavily on the difference between the profit of the business owner and the compensation of the employee ― drives a major element of consumer decision-making: cost. The greater the amount employees are paid, the more likely the employer’s costs are passed on to the consumer, which comes into play for people shopping around for the best value.

But what about people who are willing to pay more for quality? Quality does tend to correlate with the money employees earn. These consumers may investigate the differences behind the employment costs of competing companies. Another reason some may care is that, if our society consists of increasingly dissatisfied workers, there could be a large amount of unexpected service disruption due to work stoppages, which would add to the instability of a company, the entire industry and even the economy as a whole. Finally, people might be concerned because what happens in one industry can have a negative impact on what happens with human resources in their own occupation. In other words, the more tenuous the relationship between select employers and employees becomes, the more the outcome can affect workers across the board. That’s why it’s important for people in general, and workers in particular, to pay attention to what happens in labor-related conflicts. Just because somebody is not in the transportation business does not mean that news stories involving Uber and Lyft and their workers should be ignored.

Lately, we have seen instances of litigation that do not directly apply to many workers, but because of potential consequences for workers in this country and around the world they shouldn’t be ignored. “Not my problem” is a weak stance to take in a world of economic interrelationships. This is not a new development. The conflict between management and workers has been around since the days before the Industrial Revolution. But it just seems new because of the rapid emergence of highly profitable companies like Uber and Lyft and the high-profile coverage of battles over the classification of their drivers as employees or independent contractors.

But the longevity of battle related to labor relations does not mean the legal landscape is clear. If only progress worked that way. Regarding transportation workers specifically, there have been a number of legal cases that have addressed the way workers were treated, and not always for the clear reasons and results one might think. That could also be why labor relations remain in a state of flux.

For example, in 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Silk that drivers working for the Albert Silk Coal Co. were indeed employees and not independent contractors. Rather than a set of grievances brought up by disgruntled employees, the company initiated the case because it felt it had been unjustly forced to pay Social Security taxes based on newly established laws following the Great Depression. The company had sued on the grounds that because its workers worked whenever they pleased and were under contract, they should be considered independent contractors. However, the SCOTUS overturned a lower court ruling mostly because they determined that Silk provided most of the worker supervision and workers performed duties in line with the type of business services Silk mainly offered. It went further, asserting “that a contract is not conclusive evidence of independent contractor status.” This major ruling, then, brought on by a company for the sake of saving money, and not by angry employees, ironically ended up being a victory for workers.

United States v. Silk also included a look at another related case involving a company called Greyvan Lines, Inc. Greyvan, too, was attending to seek restitution of past paid social security taxes. The SCOTUS applied similar logic in this instance, namely “the degree of control exercised by the business and the independence of the worker over the operational details of the work product must be analyzed in each situation.” However, in the end they ruled the exact opposite, calling the workers independent contractors because they owned their own trucks and provided much of their own management. And although the drivers did not get social security paid for them by the company, the independence to some had its advantages. 

In effect, the rulings were just the beginning of a strategy that favored case-by-case review over establishing a clear precedence to resolve disputes. This would go on to have a long-lasting effect, and, throughout the years, the courts have navigated their way through a myriad of cases evaluating each on its individual merits. The debate over setting clear guidelines has grown.

Both industry and labor leaders have called for guidelines to reduce confusion and nagging problems due to the arbitrary nature of complaints originating from either side of the argument. They’ve complained that this loose approach contributes to contradictory rulings causing unnecessary compliance issues. This leads to additional lawsuits ending in inconsistent rulings declaring some employees independent contractors and others employees, which gives way to more lawsuits, and so on. 

And though some argue that the employment matters have improved over time, others see the exact opposite. It also doesn’t help when there seems to be numerous instances of conflict between state and federal law. A look at what is happening just between these two levels illustrates how complex it all has become. 

At the federal level, the National Labor Relations Act refers to an Internal Revenue Service based multi-factor common-law agency test that attempts to make a distinction between independent contractors and employers to help simplify the matter. This test relies on three categories: 1) Behavioral, what degree the employee controls what the employee does, 2) Financial, how the employer compensates the worker, and 3) Type of Relations, what, if any, written contracts or benefits exist. If, after applying the test, the status is still unclear, there is a form (IRS SS-8) that then can be completed by either party and may take up to six months to get a decision. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division and the Fair Labor Standards Act also weigh in on the relationship, and, in the end, stress economic independence, in part because it cannot keep up with growing trends on the new gig economy.

And then the state level gets even more undetermined. The latest arguments in California stem from Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018). The California Supreme Court sidestepped the federal efforts and developed a standard of its own, known as the ABC test. In order to be considered an independent contractor this test requires that the employee be completely outside of the control of a company, that the work performed is not a usual course of business for the company and that the worker is associated with a trade or other specific type of work. Though it’s the ABC test, there is the fourth criterion, which states that the worker has to be in business for themselves.  

But that’s not it. Once the ABC test is applied and compliance is determined, employers must also have to apply standards from another California case, S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, (1989). And to add to the already weighty mix, there are two sets of factors from Borello that must be applied. 

To help clarify the scope of the Dynamex case, a law calling for Uber, Lyft, and drivers for other companies such as Door Dash to be classified as employees has passed in California State Legislature and is waiting for Governor Gavin Newsome to sign it into law. Perhaps that law, AB5, will shore things up a bit. Uber thinks otherwise, though, and has, unsurprisingly, taken the matter to court.

Keep in mind that these measures apply to issues related to workers’ compensation and not to federal tax laws or criteria describing contractors. However, implications can only be down the road as new situations appear.

Nonetheless, rather than moving closer to actual, effective criteria, it seems that past attempts serve more to dissuade challenges to begin with. That’s not so astonishing seeing that we seem to be in an era where litigation guides policy.

And, as is often the case, what happens in California affects the rest of the country. California labor groups have inspired ride hailing driver protests and strikes around the country. Many drivers from all over have filed lawsuits. Even Democratic presidential candidates call out specifically for AB5’s passage. Other lawsuits and arbitration have become commonplace, and state legislatures have made moves one way or the other to deal with the dilemma.

Last year, the Georgia State House of Representatives passed HP 789, which in effect would have secured an environment “for marketplace contractors to be treated as independent contractors under state and local laws; to provide for definitions; to provide for conditions and exceptions; to specifically provide that as independent contractors of a marketplace platform marketplace contractors are not engaged in employment for purposes of the ‘Employment Security Law’ and are not employees for purposes of workers’ compensation; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.” This however, was never passed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp because the Senate tabled it last March.

It doesn’t help that SCOTUS has not made a decision yet and is not likely to in the near future. This debate will go on, and will unfortunately affect everybody, from the consumer to the worker. 

So an answer to the question of why anyone should care must be included in order to change the disturbing status of a discussion that seems all over the place. It’s no different from other major issues, such as those involving guns, climate change, and healthcare, which leaders either refuse to discuss, get tired of shouting about if they do, and/or it ends up in court where nothing definitive ever comes of it.

In an age of political inertia, caring is not enough. Calls for basic rights of workers, like many other societal concerns, somehow move away from being considered legitimate expressions of humanitarianism to ideas that are somehow unpatriotic, and thus end up tossed into the cynical heap of indecision. That is certainly not effective leadership.

Meanwhile, the answer is probably somewhere closer to the will of the workers, no  matter how they want to consider themselves. Workers’ voices must be heard and workers must be part of the solution. The worker’s perspective is not necessarily the company’s perspective. Those who want to be considered employees will eventually see the value in working alongside those who want to be independent contractors. They will come to see that they are actually in solidarity with each other because when it comes to the company’s bottom line, where workers stand now will be forgotten.

Next time you’re in an Uber or Lyft, you might be compelled to ask where they stand on this issue. Maybe you won’t. Either way, just be sure to thank them for the good work they do, and leave a good tip with that positive review. 

Much has been written about how unions have taken on management and won concessions for their members. These concessions have come in many forms: wage increases, improved benefits, better working conditions, etc. But what happens behind the headlines? The perspective of the rank and file on what the working environment is like after a successful negotiation is as vital as the agreement itself. Put another way, one of the main advantages of a union is not in its victories, but in how transformative it can be for workers in the workplace as a whole.

You or someone you know, may have had thoughts like this: 

“I don’t have anybody to talk to about my issue.”

“If I join a union, I might lose my job.”

“I might be ostracized if my boss knows I’m a union member.”

“As a union member, I don’t want to destroy the work relationships I have.”

These statements are based on legitimate concerns, but if all employees had comprehensible resources that advised them of their rights to air grievances or where they can legally get the support they need, imagine what that could mean for the overall health and stability of their organization. 

Here’s an example.The United Campus Workers Of Georgia Local 3265 (UCWGA) at the University of Georgia grew out of employees’ frustrations with a suspension for bookkeeping purposes of half a month’s wages following a federal mandate that prohibits employees covered by Federal Labor Standards Act protections from being forced to work overtime without pay. Outraged by this decision to withhold salaries, which took place just weeks before the holiday season, employees organized this chapter of the UCWGA, an affiliate of the 700,000 strong Communication Workers of America, itself associated with the larger American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

After receiving excellent, timely state support that resulted in purposeful action and effective negotiation, the university suspended the decision, truly a win for numerous campus workers.

This positive outcome remains only one part of the story. There’s more work to do because so many employees continue to feel disenfranchised and powerless in employment concerns. The need for this collective body on campus still exists because people need to learn how to become active participants in the decision-making process on matters that impact their working lives.

A group like UCWGA serves that purpose, according to Joe Fu, University of Georgia professor of mathematics and one of UCWGA’s founders. He believes that all employees, from those in entry-level positions to the president, ought to share the same basic rights in the workplace. This inclusive, big-picture philosophy goes beyond the us vs. them mentality.

“The purpose of the UCWGA is to transform the culture,” Fu says. “Focusing on all employees, particularly those commonly underrepresented, can improve the university.”

In other words, if the climate of the organization changes, the organization itself improves. Having state and national organizations as partners allows efforts can be more focused and fruitful. “Expertise helps,” says Professor Fu.

UCWGA created the Campus Bill of Rights, which states, “We see our higher education system as important community and statewide institutions that should model the best democratic values and provide powerful education to all those who want it for the betterment of our communities and our state.”

The document goes on to promote elements related to employee-specific rights

• living wages and just compensation
• job protection 
• the right to organize
• due process procedures
• non-discrimination protections
• guaranteed adequate benefits
• safe workplace 
• representation on governing bodies
• universal inclusion

The ongoing activities of the chapter focus on these and other important aspects of work life such as parking fees, and, according to Professor FU, the most pressing monetary issue: getting all employment levels raised to $15 an hour. But when he speaks of the struggle for fair wages, he adds, “when you take care of what people need, the rest follows.”

Other recent activities bear this out. In Los Angeles, for example, in addition to striking teachers making major monetary demands, they also made agreements that involve the addition of greenspace to school grounds and legal support for immigrant families. 

Professor Fu also finds inspiration for this big picture view on unions in the recent success of the teachers union in West Virginia. Their actions, he says, serve as a model for the entire country because they were done with honor, and they achieved their goals not just for teachers, but for system workers of all classifications. 

Still, many people remain anxious about getting involved. Though some people believe labor unions are necessary to preserve democracy, having helped make the United States grow and prosper while fostering the dignity and safety of workers, others see them as a destructive force to the nation and a threat to basic capitalist principles. 

The persuasive rhetoric supporting the latter view seems to have had a major negative impact on union participation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of U.S. workers with union membership dropped from 20.1 percent (17.7 million workers) in 1983, the first year such data was collected, to 10.5 percent in 2018 (14.5 million workers). The state of Georgia is way below the rest of the country, with only 4.5 percent union membership in 2018 (although it actually increased 0.5 percent over the previous year).

One of the common concerns of unionizing is how participation might affect relationships on the job. For those workers who may feel they need support on the job, the thought of speaking out or talking about organizing is too threatening. Although nobody in Georgia can be fired for joining a union, many are unaware of this fact.

Professor Fu claims that he hasn’t seen any backlash for union involvement at UGA. Even though chapter guidelines discourage political speech (on electoral politics and party matters), this doesn’t mean that political theory and current affairs aren’t discussed in the appropriate context. “Those ought to be protected,” he says. Reprimands for promoting a political candidate and/or party can and have happened, but Professor Fu states that in instances where people talk about labor or union issues appropriately, school officials know that ”any retaliation would be a gift to us. Free speech is protected by the Constitution.” 

It helps when employees and managers can stay on the same page, and administrators also join UCWGA. Some join because they support workers’ rights and believe it’s the right thing to do. UCWGA is, according to Professor Fu “a wall to wall union.” This means that “unlike more developed organizations in other states that may have different unions spread all over a single campus, anybody from any position at UGA can join the chapter.” This allows the union to influence the climate on campus and to promote integrity and diversity, not discord.

It also helps if the process for expressing job-related concerns is clear and not intimidating. Professor Fu explains that people with an issue commonly take the problem to a monthly meeting of officers, members, paid organizers (there to offer guidance and expertise), and local officials. They may also simply mention it to another UCWGA member. If it’s an urgent matter, the issue may find itself passed all the way up to the state steering committee for immediate action. The idea is to allow for the system of support to work as the issue finds the appropriate local and/or state leadership for sound advice. The emphasis stays on the issue and the process, not on the individual. 

Critics of unions talk about the problems unions create for employers. Problems such as increased labor costs, strike threats, increased regulation and loss of cntrol over termination resonate with owners. The wealthy have played up the idea that corruption exists in schools, according to Professor Fu. Schools are unique and “corruption happens,” he says. But corruption in schools is highlighted because “other organizations like churches don’t experience corruption the same way since they have no real class enemies.”

It’s up to a union to work with all stakeholders and create an environment that is free from such negativity. Fu says that one way a union can improve existing negative attitudes is to stay true to its mission and “identify clear injustice and mistreatments” while promoting a “culture of clear discussion that gives a voice to all.”

This is why it is imperative to take into account the workers’ perspective. Many workers (in general, not just at UGA) feel grossly underpaid and work in unsafe environments without job security or leverage to register complaints. In effect, there is a sense that many employees, a large percentage who are living at or below the poverty level, don’t have a voice when it comes to wages and benefits.

The odds are against them. The authors of a 2018 MIT study state that most workers won’t have the opportunity to join a union. Only 1 percent of workers ever become involved in a vote for representation, and only 10 percent actually form a union if employers resist. They conclude that workers will not succeed in having their voices heard until U.S. labor laws change.

Although he’s not on UCWGA’s leadership team anymore, Professor Fu is nonetheless just as optimistic about the future. UCWGA is now on nine different campuses across the state and growing. He also thinks that what happens elsewhere can make an impact here. He believes that Governor Brian Kemp’s recent $3,000 raise for public school teachers occurred in part because of what happened in West Virginia.

For more information on the UCWGA, please visit ucwga.com.

Our own city of Athens participated in this system, building its own workcamp in the late 1920s. These inmates worked on roads and bridges and a county farm (according to the ACC website). Today, people imprisoned in Athens work without pay for multiple departments. The city calls this a win-win as the “value of inmate labor exceeds the operating costs of the Athens-Clarke County Department of Corrections” (ACC website).

These people are subsidizing several ACC departments, including the Solid Waste Department, the Landscape Department and the Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Department. We learned this last month at a Federation of Neighborhoods meeting, where several directors admitted that ACC does not pay people working in their departments. When we looked at the Corrections budget we found out that 90 percent of people locked away in Athens’ correctional facility work for the city, amounting to 204,048 hours of unpaid labor stolen from people living in Athens.

We oppose this practice on multiple fronts because we believe the city should provide all of its workers with living wages and that good-paying jobs decrease poverty and crime. Moreover, we believe jobs with fair wages in a city with such high poverty serves the city more than unpaid labor ever could. At the last Board of Directors meeting, A4E voted unanimously to oppose the use of unpaid labor of incarcerated people, by ACCUG and any institution. A week later, at the mayor and commission meeting, Patrick Davenport and Tim Denson spoke against the use of unpaid labor in our city.

We invite you to join us at our next Political Discussion Group (February 20, at 6 p.m., at 1060 Gaines School Rd. [the ACC Dems headquarters]), where we will talk about this issue, and the next Federation of Neighborhoods meeting on February 11, 2019, at 7:30 p.m. at Ciné (in downtown Athens), where we will ask the mayor and commission what their stances are on the issue of unpaid labor.

Athens for Everyone
February 11, 2019

Everyone wants justice, but what exactly is it and how do we get it? One thing is clear: justice means being involved.

Established in 2003, the Economic Justice Coalition (EJC) believes that a just world ought to provide workers with meaningful and sustained employment so that they and their families may enjoy an inherently decent quality of life. EJC’s ongoing goals include:

• advocating for increased worker wages and benefits
• educating the public
• assisting individuals who start up businesses
• promoting voter registration

EJC reaches out to local employers to underscore the advantages of improving wages and benefits. Its efforts have already had a major impact on workers with the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government, the University of Georgia and Piedmont Hospital.

Committed to changing the employment culture, EJC also recognizes many employers as “Worker Friendly,” an EJC program encouraging employers to pay workers above minimum wage and provide basic benefits including health care, sick and vacation leave and retirement.

EJC facilitates the development of Supporting Worker Cooperatives, businesses that are owned and run by their workers. Peachy Green Cleaning Co-op, Unity Labor Cooperatives, Above and Beyond Health Care and Social Enterprises are just a few examples.

According to EJC executive director Linda Lloyd, the major focus these days is on the political front. Workers’ wages are so vital that Lloyd believes the issue must be added to Athens-Clarke County’s Envision Athens Action Agenda. “Getting it in there and keeping it in there is important,” said Lloyd.

Getting people out to vote is just as crucial as it enables the message of economic justice to be heard at the local, state and national levels. EJC efforts over the years have been paying off; the group is responsible for 14,500 voter registrations since 2004.

Lloyd has a special request for Athens for Everyone (A4E) members: help get the word out about voter registration. EJC continues to do voter registration training and to spend time registering voters, one by one. Lloyd encourages younger folks to contribute however they can because someday they’ll be taking over the work; “We don’t want to keep repeating the injustices of the past,” she said.

Specifically, EJC needs volunteers to:

• maintain its web page
• increase EJC presence on social media
• help expand voter registration efforts to areas beyond public housing

Lloyd herself stays involved because things take way too long, and she’s “tired of waiting for someone else to do what needs to get done.”

Becoming active for justice starts with the heart, and it’s clear that EJC has plenty of it.

To learn more about the Economic Justice Coalition, visit http://www.economicjusticecoalition.org/

Steve Piazza
8/20/2018
Athens for Everyone

Stability in any society requires that its people be gainfully employed in meaningful and lasting work via sensible, sustainable industries. Work is necessary for psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being. A safe and supportive environment is vital to ensuring that workers and business owners can together participate fully in the give-and-take relationship required for a business, and an economy, to thrive. Just as businesses have the leverage to make reasonable demands of their workers, employees ought to have rights to air grievances without the threat of harsh consequences. For decades, because of laws for which many fought, workers have had reason to trust that their concerns would be treated fairly on the merits of their case.

For example, employees could file complaints collectively, both to legitimize a grievance and to share related legal costs. That right is now in jeopardy as the U.S Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4, in Ernst and Young v. Morris, that companies can require that all such grievances be handled by individual arbitration.

Specifically, the Court ruled in favor of three companies (Ernst & Young LLP, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil USA Inc.) that had been challenged successfully in lower courts by employees who were forced to sign agreements not to join any class-action suits against their respective employers. The Court’s decision focused on two laws, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which guarantees the judicial process of arbitration to resolve differences, and the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which secures employees’ right to bargain collectively and protects them from abuses by employers.

In effect, the Court based its decision on the belief that NLRA does not trump the objective of the earlier FAA. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, reasoned, “The NLRA secures to employees rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, but it says nothing about how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum.” In other words, employees who feel that conduct or conditions in the workplace threaten workers are no longer guaranteed the right to band together with their fellow workers to strengthen their case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, “For workers striving to gain from their employers decent terms and conditions of employment, there is strength in numbers.” She accepts that the majority believes section 7 of the NLRA strictly be read “to protect things employees ‘just do’ for themselves,” yet “It is far from apparent why joining hands in litigation would not qualify as ‘things employees just do for themselves.’” Her emphasis on “strength in numbers” is hardly new, but it is even more crucial now as we seem to be witnessing the eroding of workers’ rights.

The ruling creates shaky ground for working people when it comes to sexual harassment, safety concerns, compensation, etc. It also stands as further indication of the political manipulation of the judicial system. Rather than an objective and inalienable right, justice is becoming a mere tool to be tampered with.

Here are some examples of how our system can be manipulated by the powerful:

• Parties (like the petitioners in this case) can choose to appeal a ruling in districts that seat judges historically friendly to their side of such issues, rather than in the district of an earlier filing that may be perceived as less friendly.
• Courts can choose to consolidate cases (as the Supreme Court did here) for umbrella decisions, making it easier for activist judges to be farther reaching in their intent.
• Cases can be deliberately scheduled to benefit from a politically driven delay in the filling of a vacancy on the Supreme Court appointment so that a select judge more likely to rule a particular way can be sworn in after a new, allied president is in office. New executive administrations can undermine relative governing bodies (for example, by using the Solicitor General’s Office to speak for the National Labor Relations Boards and fast-track a hearing before the court) to ensure that favorable testimony and arguments are provided.
• Mercenary attorneys and bureaucrats can exploit many vulnerabilities (or loopholes) in the process leading up to the Supreme Court hearing a case. Once it does, the rhetoric of its reasoning is carefully crafted to lead to the desired outcome.

Returning to the recent ruling, that an earlier, more specific law was used to override a law designed to be more comprehensive seems arbitrary at best. Furthermore, to resolve a conflict that has such serious implications for the employer–employee relationship using such a slim, biased interpretation harms the success and longevity of any enterprise. Simply put, this is not even smart business.

Georgia is one of 25 “right to work” states, which means that although a business is prohibited from using membership in a union as a condition for employment, it cannot penalize an employee or employees for union participation. What impact the recent ruling will have is yet to be seen, but seeing that employers now have the weight of the higher court behind them to steer plaintiffs toward individual arbitration and away from collective action, the playing field is now imbalanced. Employees face the loss of a fundamental support that has led to improvements in wages, healthcare and other benefits, safer work environments and an end to child labor.

Employers have their rights, but they have no businesses to run if they are not investing in their employees. Both individual and collective protocols have their place, and can save all involved time, money, crucial relationships and even lives.

What can be done? For starters, people can voice displeasure by contacting state and congressional leaders and asking them to review and/or revise legislation that prevents the further erosion of workers’ rights. People need to stay current on candidates up for judicial posts so that they may inform political leaders which individuals they feel have the integrity necessary to uphold fairness in legal matters and procedures and which do not. It is vital for individuals to know their rights as employees and the policies that govern their own workplace. Finally, workers need to know that they are not alone and understand the value of getting involved, such as by joining and/or supporting local organizations that advocate for workers.

Steve Piazza
7/15/2018
Athens for Everyone

Beto Mendoza, lead organizer and Coordinator of the AIRC, said before the rally that “Deportation is a cancer in our community. It has never made our neighbors safe, it has never reduced violent crime in our city, and it has never brought new jobs or improved our economy. Deportation has only helped politicians get elected. It has only created hate in our community. We will stand up alongside our families and neighbors and say ‘Not One More Deportation!’ Not One More kid crying in our schools or our streets because their parents have been arrested right before their eyes at 5am!”

The Athens Anti Discrimination Movement (AADM) was also in attendance in solidarity with AIRC, A4E and other local organizations. According to Pres. Knowa Johnson, AADM believes it is important to show support to families and individuals who find themselves in dire situations where government involvement causes turmoil.

The rally started on Prince Avenue and, led by 20 children, proceeded through downtown with stops at the UGA Arch and the courthouse. 150-200 people attended. The march ended in a celebratory mood, with the children all receiving presents and a dance party breaking out on the steps of the courthouse.

Commissioner Melissa Link and Board of Education member Ovita Thornton were among those who attended the march. When asked what the local government could do to help families affected by deportations, Commissioner Link said, “We need to have open and honest conversations with our Sheriff and other law enforcement officials.” She mentioned two upcoming town hall meetings with Chief Freeman, one on May 9th at Gaines School Elementary and the other on May 11th at Chase Street Elementary. Both town halls are from 6:30-8:00pm.

Thanks to Wade Sheldon Photography for the photos!

Chris Dowd
May 2, 2017

A keystone of any free society is recognition and enforcement of the true right to work, the right to

The right to work can only be realized if the public guarantee of employment at a living wage is a permanent fixture of our society.

Markets can never be relied upon to ensure full employment. Competition always has winners and losers and companies must continually develop more efficient production and marketing techniques, as well as new products and services, or face demise. The resulting upheavals in employment will only intensify with the impending expansion of automation from manufacturing to service industries and the replacement of full-time work with freelance temporary and part-time jobs in the exploding gig economy.

Individuals can only be protected from these threats to their economic independence and security if government steps in to provide jobs for any able and willing individual who is under- or unemployed. To ensure that these jobs do not compete with existing employment, they must consist of employment in public works that serve the common good, furnishing products and services that profit-seeking enterprises are unwilling or unable to offer. There is no shortage of work that ought to be done, from renewing and expanding needed infrastructure for a green and wired economy, to building and maintaining affordable housing, to providing public child- and elder-care, to enhancing public education, to extending health and legal services, and to providing arts of all sorts to the public.

The Works Progress Administration, established by FDR during the Great Depression, showed what can be achieved. The WPA put more than 8 million people back to work, producing many of the greatest public infrastructure and cultural endowments from which we still benefit today. Although the WPA was introduced as a temporary emergency measure to cope with our gravest economic calamity, the right to work can only be realized if the public guarantee of employment at a living wage is a permanent fixture of our society. Although it is not sufficient to safeguard all our family and political rights, publically guaranteed employment is a transformative measure that can ground a new birth of freedom, based on genuine economic independence and security.  

Imagine what a new world we would inhabit if everyone coming of age would know a meaningful job awaits them. Imagine the confidence we would all enjoy if anyone whose job is downsized or reduced to part-time work can be sure of regaining full-time employment contributing to our common good. Imagine the new security of anyone coming home from military service who now could be certain of transitioning to employment at a living wage. And imagine the game changing situation of anyone coming out of prison with the new surety that one can earn an honest living that serves the public needs that private enterprise fails to satisfy.

Giving full-time jobs to the under- and unemployed will contribute to economic vitality by increasing disposable income, thereby expanding consumer demand and fostering job growth. Economic stagnation will be further combatted by funding the job-creating public works with a highly graduated wealth tax that will draw from the most affluent, who can spend comparatively little of their amassed wealth. Instead of sitting idle, those funds will be turned into the disposable income of employees who will spend much more of their wealth and thereby generate much more economic growth. In these ways, public works will diminish the need for their own expansion.

Astonishingly, not a single elected official or candidate for office has advocated enforcement of the true right to work. Nonetheless, that right is a bedrock of a new social bill of rights that we need to secure our freedoms. Stay tuned for further installments in a path yet to be taken.

Richard Dien Winfield, May 1, 2017

Richard Dien Winfield has been writing and teaching philosophy at the University of Georgia since 1982.  His books include Reason and Justice, The Just Economy, The Just Family, Law in Civil Society, The Just State, and Rethinking Capital.  Winfield is exploring running for Congress in Georgia’s 10th District.

Victory Delivered With All Year-Round ACC County Workers to be Paid a Living Wage!

As of July 1, all Athens-Clarke County year-round workers will be paid a minimum hourly rate of $11.60/hour as a result of the County compensation study findings and tireless work by Athens for Everyone and other workers rights advocates. This will immediately affect approximately 85 County workers, who will see an average hourly increase of $2.38. Athens for Everyone is thrilled that ACC county workers will soon be better valued.

In September of 2015, A4E Organization Coordinator Tim Denson filed an open records request for documents showing a number of County workers were being paid under a living wage, as set by the MIT Living Wage Calculator (When this campaign was begun that rate was $10.17/hour, it is currently at $10.82) and some were being paid as low as minimum wage. This kicked off Athens for Everyone’s months-long campaign to put a policy in place guaranteeing all County workers were paid a living wage or higher. That campaign, led by former A4E Workers Rights Coordinator Drew Hooks, and alongside the Economic Justice Coalition, took the shape of petitions, rallies, viral videos, lobbying, and speeches at Commission meetings. That work led the Commission to request staff conduct a wage-study and classification project with the hope to have all county employees above a Living Wage. We are happy to see that that has happened and commend the staff and Commissioners who worked to see this through. We will continue to call for a base wage established that is tied to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, ensuring that wages for County workers will never fall below a living wage ever again.

[youtube www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pjiWQC5i6g&w=450&h=255]
Athens for Everyone urged adoption of a living wage policy in 2016

With a relatively low unemployment-rate but 38% poverty rate in Athens, it is pivotal for workers to be paid a living wage if we are ever seriously going to tackle poverty in Athens. Athens for Everyone hopes this victory for County Workers will be the beginning of a living wage movement in Athens and A4E will use the momentum of this victory to push for other area employers, such as the University of Georgia, to adopt similar policies. The entire community must all work together to build a movement that sees employers ensuring that their workers are valued and cared for and paid a living wage.  Let’s build a Living Wage Culture in Athens!

###

Read the Athens-Banner Herald article for more!