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
house democrats
House Dems Unveil Sweeping Bill to Protect Worker Rights and Safety
"This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers," said Rep. Bobby Scott.
Jul 26, 2024
A group of Democratic U.S. House members on Friday unveiled legislation "aimed at bolstering protections for America's workers and ensuring accountability for employers who flout labor and employment laws."
The Labor Enforcement to Securely (LET'S) Protect Workers Act was introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)—the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—and House Labor Caucus Co-Chairs Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), and Steven Horsford (D-Nev.).
The bill's sponsors said their legislation is based on the premise that "employment laws are a promise to our nation's workers" meant to "secure the most basic rights of work."
"That promise is broken," they contended. "Recent shocking revelations about massive increases in the number of children illegally overworked and trafficked into dangerous jobs—just over 85 years since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted to eliminate that very problem—is the latest example of the ways that this promise to America's workers is broken."
Across the U.S., Republican state lawmakers have been advancing legislation to remove restrictions on child labor, despite several high-profile workplace deaths of minors. At the federal level, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) last year introduced a bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in the logging industry.
The LET'S Protect Workers Act sponsors highlighted rampant wage theft and overtime violations, workplace injuries, and union-busting by employers who "know that even if a resource-starved Department of Labor catches a violation, the penalties are a mere slap on the wrist."
"People should be able to come home at the end of the day—alive, well, in one piece, and with all the wages they worked hard to earn," the lawmakers asserted. "Children should be in schools, not dangerous workplaces, and workers should be able to organize a union without interference or the threat of retaliation from their employers."
According to House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats, if passed, the LET'S Protect Workers Act would:
- Increase civil monetary penalties for violations of child labor, minimum wage and overtime, worker health and safety, and farmworker protection standards;
- Improve mine safety and reliable funding of black lung benefits through new and increased civil monetary penalties and the option to shut down scofflaw operators;
- Set new penalties for retaliation against workers who exercise their family and medical leave rights;
- Strengthen enforcement of mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans;
- Close a loophole that allows employers to escape penalties for failing to keep records of workplace injuries if [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] does not detect the violation within six months; and
- Create new penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, consistent with the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.
"Every American should be fairly compensated and be able to return home safely at the end of the day," Scott said in a statement Friday. "Unfortunately, shortcomings in our labor laws enable unethical employers to exploit workers, endanger children, and suppress the right to organize—with little accountability."
"That's why I'm proud to introduce the LET'S Protect Workers Act, which will hold bad actors accountable and strengthen penalties for labor law violations," he added. "This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers."
In a joint statement, Dingell, Horsford, Norcross, and Pocan said that "the lack of meaningful enforcement makes it all too easy for bad faith actors to get away with illegally violating workers' rights—from firing workers for organizing a union, to allowing children to work overnight shifts, or jeopardizing workers' safety by ignoring workplace regulations."
"We're proud to join Ranking Member Scott in introducing this bill to crack down on unscrupulous employers and to ensure that workers receive the protections they deserve," the lawmakers added.
Earlier this month, nearly 50 labor organizations led by the AFL-CIO and representing a wide range of U.S. workers urged congressional Democrats to resist Republican efforts to roll back rules enacted by the Biden administration to protect worker rights amid relentless attacks by abusive employers.
Specifically, the labor groups warned that Republicans are trying to use the Congressional Review Act—which was enacted to strengthen oversight of federal rulemaking—to overturn pro-worker rules enacted by the Department of Labor and other government bodies.
Meanwhile, Republicans including former President Donald Trump—the 2024 GOP nominee—have been trying to woo U.S. workers with proposals including a tax exemption for tipped employees panned as a "
hollow promise" by experts and by inviting Teamsters president Sean O'Brien to speak at the Republican National Convention last week.
In response to Republicans' dubious courting of U.S. labor, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who is a co-sponsor of the LET'S Protect Workers Act—recently called for holding what would be a largely symbolic vote on the PRO Act. The bill was revived last year by Scott and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and, if passed, would expand labor protections including the right to organize and collectively bargain.
"If Republicans wanna talk like they're pro-worker, then let's have a vote on the PRO Act next week," Casar
said on social media last week. "Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk. Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Ethical Nightmare': House Democrats Demand Alito Recuse From Trump Cases
"The fact of such a political statement at your home creates, at minimum, the appearance of improper political bias."
May 21, 2024
Citing recent reporting that an inverted American flag—an alleged symbol of the "Stop the Steal" election denialism stoked by former U.S. President Donald Trump—was flown at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito following January 6, 2021, 45 House Democrats on Tuesday demanded his recusal from all cases involving the right-wing insurrection or 2020 presidential contest.
Earlier this month, The New York Timesrevealed that the inverted flag flew in front of Alito's home in Alexandria, Virginia during the period between the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters and the inauguration of President Joe Biden.
"It is incontrovertible that at the time the upside-down flag flew from your front lawn, 'Stop the Steal' activists had adopted the inverted flag as their symbol of protest. Their belief that widespread election fraud had thrown the election from former President Trump to then-President-Elect Biden has never been supported by any evidence," a letter signed by the Democrats states.
The lawmakers cite a section of the U.S. Flag Code—which is legally unenforceable—barring the display of inverted American flags "except as a signal of dire distress in instance of extreme danger to life or property."
"No such dire distress was in existence at the time the inverted flag flew from your front yard," the letter notes. "Indeed, your own public statement attempts to pass responsibility to your wife, but you nonetheless acknowledge that it was a political statement in support of Donald Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election."
Alito told the Times he "had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," which he said "was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
The lawmakers' letter continues:
Even if you had "no involvement" in the display yourself, the fact of such a political statement at your home creates, at minimum, the appearance of improper political bias. According to Canon 5 of the recently promulgated, non-binding, non-enforceable U.S. Supreme Court ethics guidelines, on which you are listed as a signatory, a justice "should refrain from political activity." In fact, the court's own employee guidelines explicitly prohibit public displays of political views—including yard signs and bumper stickers—because they create an appearance of a conflict of interest...
In Canon 3B, the guidelines declare that "a justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties."
There are currently two cases related to January 6 and the 2020 election before the court. Trump v. United Statesconcerns the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee's claim he has absolute presidential immunity for any official acts—in this case, trying to subvert the 2020 election—while Fischer v. United States is about whether January 6 insurrections committed felony obstruction of an official proceeding.
"Sadly, you are now the second justice who has demonstrated at least an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection," the letter laments. "In the aftermath of the 2020 election, text messages revealed that Virginia 'Ginni' Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, was actively strategizing with the White House chief of staff about how to overturn the election results and attending the January 6 'Stop the Steal' rally—precisely the same underlying conduct charged in Trump and Fischer."
"Although Justice Thomas seemingly acknowledged this conflict of interest by recusing himself from the court's case related to Trump attorney John Eastman, he has shockingly refused to recuse himself from Trump and Fischer," the lawmakers noted.
"Undoubtedly, public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court is in shambles, which jeopardizes our democracy and the rule of law upon which it is based. And given that your decisions in Trump and Fischer will profoundly affect the future of a past and potentially future president, and of democracy itself, it is essential that the court attempt to bolster the public's trust in the integrity of the court," the letter to Alito states.
"In order to protect the legitimacy of the court's ultimate decision in these historic cases," it concludes, "it is clear that both you and Justice Thomas must recuse yourselves from participating any further in these, or any other cases, related to January 6 or the 2020 election."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrats Support for MAGA Mike Johnson Is a Weakness Not a Strength
If they want to win, House Democrats should have let House Republicans depose their own leader for the second time this year and demonstrate to voters the chaos of keeping Republicans in charge.
May 16, 2024
When the Republican House Majority lacked the votes to defeat Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House, 163 House Democrats voted to keep him in office.
What was their thanks? Only a week later, Johnson showed up at Trump’s hush money trial to proclaim Trump’s innocence, to falsely attack the Judge’s daughter, and to denounce the American justice system as corrupt.
Recently M. Steven Fish wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Trump Knows Dominance Wins. Someone Tell Democrats.” As Mr. Fish wrote, “The American National Elections Studies has polled voters on presidential candidates’ traits since the 1980s, and the candidates who rated higher on ‘strong leadership’ has never lost. The one who more people agree ‘really cares about people like you’ loses half the time.” Fish also writes, “Today’s Republicans are all about dominance. They embrace us-versus-them framing, double down on controversial statements and take risks. Today’s Democrats often recoil from “othering” opponents and back down after ruffling feathers. They have grown obsessively risk-averse, poll-driven, allergic to engaging on hot-button issues…”
What could be more risk averse than House Democrats voting to support an election-denying MAGA man for Speaker of the House, the person second in line to the Presidency, in the name of “stability”?
If they want to win, House Democrats should have let House Republicans depose their own leader for the second time this year and demonstrate to voters the chaos of keeping Republicans in charge. Rather than bailing them out, they should have let the GOP drown.
In light of Johnson’s appearance at the Trump trial, House Democrats, if they have the courage, still have a chance to fix this drastic mistake. Let a new motion to depose Johnson come to the floor and don’t give him a single Democratic vote. Let the country see the chaos wrought by MAGA Republicans.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular