SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of labor
Sanders Says Attack on NLRB Proves Trump Is Enemy of the Working Class
"Rather than standing up for average Americans," said the Independent U.S. senator, the president is "protecting the interests of some of the wealthiest people in the world."
Feb 08, 2025
President Donald Trump, by his actions, has revealed his clear dishonesty when he claims to be governing on behalf of American workers and their families.
That's the message at the heart of a statement released Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who cited recent attacks on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by the Trump administration and his allies that directly contradict any such claims.
"When Trump campaigned for president, he claimed he was on the side of the working class," said Sanders. "But that’s not what he’s delivering. Rather than standing up for average Americans, he's protecting the interests of some of the wealthiest people in the world."
When Trump, he continued, "fires the most pro-union General Counsel in the history of the NLRB and illegally removes a member of this independent board, he is not a champion of the working class. He is a champion of unfettered corporate greed and union busters."
"When Trump campaigned for president, he claimed he was on the side of the working class. But that’s not what he’s delivering."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders
On Jan. 27, NLRB Commissioner Gwynne Wilcox, appointed to the board in 2021 for a term intended to last through to 2028, was terminated in a move that labor experts said was both unprecedented and unlawful.
Wilcox, who has since filed a lawsuit over her ouster, said in an interview with CBS News on Thursday that she was shocked—as were many others—by Trump's move, which she called a "blatant violation" of statutes that protect members of the board from political interference or reprisal.
"The law is that board members cannot be removed from their position unless they've engaged in neglect or duty or malfeasance, Wilcox explained. "And based upon the letter I received, there was no claim of that. There [wasn't] any cause or any reason that I was actually terminated."
Labor unions and advocates have said the attack on Wilcox represents a full and frontal assault on the ability of workers to organize or for union members to have their disputes or grievances addressed.
"The removal of Chair Wilcox threatens NLRB's independence and endangers working people's rights," said Eric Dean, General President of the Iron Workers Union (IW), in a Friday statement. "We stand in solidarity with Chair Wilcox and call for her immediate reinstatement to safeguard workers' rights."
The IW, which represents over 135,000 ironworkers in North America, said the "inappropriate" removal of Wilcox "has rendered the 5-member board inoperable, shutting down its decision-making ability and jeopardizing the protection of workers."
Sanders, in his remarks, echoed that central concern:
As a result of Trump’s unprecedented move, the NLRB no longer has a quorum and has effectively been shut down. What does this mean? It means that it will be far, far harder for workers to exercise their constitutional right to form a union and improve their standard of living. It means that during a union election, corporate bosses can illegally fire workers who vote to join a union. It means that corporate CEOs have free rein to illegally intimidate and coerce pro-union workers without recourse. It means that corporations can aggressively decide not to bargain in good faith with union workers or sign a first contract.
And because the NLRB is now dysfunctional, workers have no recourse.
Trump’s decision has already had disastrous consequences. Last week, workers at a Whole Foods grocery store in Philadelphia voted 130-100 to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union. But Whole Foods, owned by Jeff Bezos, has made it crystal clear that they will ignore this union victory and will not bargain with their union workers in good faith. Without a functioning NLRB, Whole Foods cannot be held accountable for its illegal behavior.
Sanders singled out Bezos as well as Elon Musk, who has been tapped by Trump to oversee the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), which is not an actual department with congressionally-granted authority but has targeted numerous federal agencies over the last two weeks, including the Department of Labor.
"For months, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the two wealthiest men alive," said Sanders, "have been working overtime to abolish the NLRB. Why is that? These notorious anti-union billionaires want the absolute power to exploit their workers and violate labor law. The lower the wages they pay, the more money they make. Since Election Day, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have become $184 billion richer and are now worth $669 billion. But, apparently, that’s not enough."
Since Trump's reelection in November, a campaign victory bankrolled by numerous right-wing billionaires like Musk, Sanders has railed against the threat posed by what he has termed an American oligarchy.
Union leaders like AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler have also issued warnings about the erosion of worker protections under Trump.
“The government can work for billionaires or it can work for working people—but not both,” Shuler said on Wednesday ahead of a rally outside the Department of Labor, where DOGE personnel were said to meeting with DOL staffers.
“The government can work for billionaires or it can work for working people—but not both." —Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO
In a recent appearance on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes," Sanders said that while Republicans are in control of both chambers of Congress, those majorities are historically slim and that means lawmakers remain "susceptible to citizen outrage."
Sanders said he wanted the American people, and specifically working families, to understand that they are right to be anxious about the current situation, but that they must mobilize and agitate to make their opposition heard.
"If you see these guys doing something—like wanting to give huge tax breaks to billionaires while they cut Medicare; or they want to go 'Drill, baby, drill' while we happen to be facing an existential threat of climate change; if they want to deport 20 million people in this country—stand up, fight back, we can beat them," said Sanders.
"Let's not act in a hopeless way," he continued, remarking on what can be done in the immediate term. "Longer term, obviously, we have to do what the Democratic Party has not done—and become the party of the working class, develop a strong grassroots movement, with labor unions, with young people, with people of color—and organize and fight back."
"The progressive agenda, and I say this over and over again, is the people's agenda," said Sanders. "It is wildly popular."
Keep ReadingShow Less
It’s Long Past Time to End Subminimum Wages for Disabled Workers
Segregated, subminimum wage jobs deprive disabled people of the chance to know what we’re capable of when our needs are valued and met.
Jan 16, 2025
After years of advocacy from the disabled community, the Department of Labor is proposing a rule that would end the issuance of 14(c) certificates, which enable businesses to pay subminimum wages to disabled workers.
If you’re unfamiliar with Section 14(c) of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, you might be shocked to learn that it is, in fact, legal to pay disabled workers below the minimum wage. Companies across the country can request 14(c) certificates that give them license to pay disabled workers far below poverty wages. It’s a practice that has been present for decades, but there is once again movement toward making 14(c) a thing of the past.
Ending this practice is long overdue, and is desperately needed to keep disabled people out of poverty. In the South, where my organization New Disabled South works, poverty is higher than anywhere else in the country. And there are more 14(c) certificates in the South than any other region in the nation. We know that disabled people live in poverty at twice the rate of nondisabled people—which means that there is simply no reason to keep disabled people in poverty by paying them poverty wages. It is unconscionable.
Calling this a “special” wage is an insult to the disability community, which deserves to thrive and live with dignity.
Proponents of 14(c) certificates have emphasized the supposed merits of these certificates, saying that they provide people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) the opportunities to work that they otherwise wouldn’t have. One argument that gets perpetuated often is that it’s better to pay folks with IDD something rather than nothing at all. This is perhaps the most disturbing justification imaginable—implying that sheltered workshops are sufficient options for people who “wouldn’t otherwise be employable.” In truth, segregated, subminimum wage jobs deprive disabled people of the chance to know what we’re capable of when our needs are valued and met. We rise to the occasion when employers, family advocates, caregivers, regulatory agencies, and legislators meet their responsibilities to us. Many more disabled people would be capable of competitive integrated employment—and more generally, would be better able to reach our highest potential—if we are first provided with fair wages, in addition to wrap-around support that allows us to improve our skills and do our jobs in an accessible environment.
Decades of research demonstrate that segregated, subminimum wage jobs generate higher costs for employers and worse outcomes for disabled people. Plus, employment rates for disabled people improve in states that end 14(c). What is truly needed is Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE), which ensures that disabled people get paid fairly and have opportunities for employment in their community, as opposed to being segregated from it. Many more of us would be capable of CIE if we were provided with the integrated opportunities afforded under Olmstead and the reasonable accommodations protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including those that teach and allow us to communicate via augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).
Arguments favoring the continued use of 14(c) certificates are primarily based on fear or misunderstanding of the current policy and programmatic landscape. The biggest misconception is that payments above subminimum wage will disqualify disabled employees from receiving the public benefits they require. However, two existing options for mitigating that possibility are ABLE Accounts and Medicaid “buy-in” programs.
ABLE accounts are savings accounts that allow disabled people to save money without it counting toward the asset limits associated with eligibility for SSI, Medicaid, SNAP, and other government assistance programs. Medicaid “buy-in” programs allow disabled workers to access, sometimes in exchange for a premium, the home- and community-based services that are not provided under employer-sponsored or other private health insurance plans. Forty-seven states and D.C. have Medicaid “buy-in” programs. No one should have to choose between keeping a job and keeping their healthcare, and this program makes it possible for disabled people to have both.
ABLE accounts and Medicaid “buy-in” programs must be expanded to eliminate disincentives to work. Income and asset limits associated with eligibility for government assistance programs must also be raised to align with the rising cost of living across the country, particularly for disabled people. But even in the absence of those policy changes, the finalization of DOL’s proposed 14(c) rule will still be beneficial.
This is what equity and inclusion looks like, not continuing the standard set by Section 14(c) for low quality of life, inequality, and economic suffering. Proponents of the 14(c) program refer to subminimum wages as the “Special Minimum Wage,” a stunningly offensive term aimed at diminishing the harm that paying these wages does to disabled workers. As of 2019, the majority of 14(c) employees were earning less than $3.40 an hour, or $213.76 per month, while—as I highlighted two years ago—the executive directors of many of these workplaces made five- and six-figure salaries. Calling this a “special” wage is an insult to the disability community, which deserves to thrive and live with dignity.
The Department of Labor is accepting public comment through January 17, meaning there is still time to encourage them to finalize the proposed rule and finally end the 14(c) program once and for all. To learn more about DOL’s proposed rule and how to submit comments by January 17, check out this Plain Language explainer and action alert from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Over $1.5 Billion in Workers' Stolen Wages Recovered From 2021-23
"Workers who can least afford to bear the cost of lost earnings—particularly low-wage workers—are disproportionately vulnerable to wage violations," according to Economic Policy Institute researchers.
Dec 23, 2024
A report published Friday by the progressive-leaning think tank the Economic Policy Institute found that federal, state, and local efforts were able to recover more than $1.5 billion in stolen wages between 2021 and 2023.
Wage theft, which includes things like paying workers less than the legal minimum wage or denying workers their legal meal breaks, "is pervasive across all industries and income levels," according to the report's authors, "but workers who can least afford to bear the cost of lost earnings—particularly low-wage workers—are disproportionately vulnerable to wage violations."
Wage theft is extremely costly to workers. Prior research cited by the EPI report estimates that workers lose $15 billion annually from minimum wage violations alone. For comparison, FBI data shows that robberies accounted for $598 million in losses in 2018, and $482 million the year after, so less than $2 billion over a two-year period, according to the report.
Action at multiple levels of government can help recover what's lost. At the federal level, the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division reports that it recovered $659.8 million between 2021 and 2023, which comes out to wage recovery for 510,534 workers, and an average of $1,292 in recovered wages per worker.
As an example of this kind of enforcement effort, the authors recounted that the Department of Labor (DOL) went after four Los Angeles sewing contractors, which yielded $1.1 million in back wages and damages for over 160 garment workers.
Meanwhile, at the state level, 34 departments of labor and attorneys general recovered a total of $203.3 million over those three years. The other 16 states either did not respond, did not have the requested data, or could not provide the requested data.
Class action settlements are another important avenue for wage recovery. According to the authors, the value of the top ten wage and hour class action settlements tallied $641.3 million in 2021—putting it on par with the DOL wage recovery for the full 2021-2023 period. The report, which includes class action settlement research done by the firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, does not include class action data for 2022 and 2023.
"This class action data illustrates that workers are more effective in recovering stolen wages on a collective versus individual basis. However, many workers are barred from joining class action cases, because they are subject to forced arbitration agreements," the authors wrote.
When it comes to policy solutions, the authors noted that there have been a number of positive enforcement changes at the state level. For example, "many states have strengthened penalties for wage theft violations, enforcing them as criminal statutes" while some have "established laws allowing victims of wage theft to obtain a lien on employer property to ensure payment of back pay."
At the federal level, the authors advocated for increased funding for DOL’s Wage and Hour Division in order to boost enforcement efforts. The division has not seen a significant funding increase in over a decade, they wrote. The authors also argue in favor of a number of pieces of legislation, including the Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act and the Protecting Right to Organize (PRO) Act—which would strengthen the right of private sector workers to unionize and collectively bargain.
While many in the labor movement expect U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to advance an anti-worker agenda, his pick to head the Department of Labor was met with cautious optimism by some corners of the labor world. Trump tapped Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) for the role. She co-sponsored the PRO Act in 2023—though at least one critic called this move "mostly symbolic."
In response to the news that Trump had picked Chavez-DeRemer, EPI's Celine McNicholas wrote in November that if workers truly have an ally in her, she "will advance policies that improve workers' lives."
According to McNicholas, those include funding the Department of Labor and protecting workers' overtime pay—as well as refusing to reinstitute the Payroll Audit Independent Determination program that was instituted during the first Trump administration, which mandated that if "if an employer proactively notified DOL of the failure to pay minimum wage or overtime or for taking illegal deductions from workers' paychecks, then DOL waived all penalties and liquidated damages," according to McNicholas.
The program "essentially permits employers who have stolen workers' wages to confess and get out of jail free," she wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular