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
workers rights
Tariffs Should Be a Scalpel, Not a Sledgehammer
While tariffs can be a tool for positive change, they need to be used alongside investments and strong environmental protections in our own country.
Jan 26, 2025
During the campaign and in the months since the election, President Donald Trump spoke about tariffs—a tax on imports—as a tool to achieve everything from “bringing back” manufacturing jobs to the Midwest to acquiring Greenland. A tariff policy that delivers good jobs and a better quality of life to working families is possible. But it must be thoughtful and work with other policies that prioritize innovation, public health, and sustainability. Under this administration’s current approach, working families risk paying more for goods we need every day while suffering higher levels of pollution.
Tariffs are a tool for compliance and can be effective in enforcing human rights, labor, and environmental protections around the world. For instance, tariffs can make it more expensive for American companies and consumers to purchase goods made in countries that choose to produce goods more cheaply than American competitors because they allow factories to dump their waste in local waterways. A pollution-linked tariff would either nudge factories in a foreign country to compete more fairly by following the same environmental rules or nudge American consumers to buy from American manufacturers who do follow those rules.
Unfettered free trade promoted by U.S. leaders for decades sent our jobs abroad, shed key industries vital to our economic security, and worsened the environment around the world. Carefully applied, tariffs are one way to help rectify these errors.
Recently, former President Joe Biden’s lead trade negotiator announced that her office would investigate Nicaragua’s human and labor rights abuses to determine if the U.S. can put a “Section 301” tariff on Nicaraguan goods. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 lets the U.S. government impose tariffs for production practices and policies in other countries that make trade unfair. In her statement, former Ambassador Katherine Tai said that the Nicaraguan government undermines fair competition by repressing its people. To put it simply, because there is little respect for workers, human rights, and the rule of law, goods can be made more cheaply in Nicaragua than they would be made in countries that abide by high-road standards. While this is the first time Section 301 tariffs have been used in this way, these tariffs could be more widely deployed to address harmful or hostile production practices worldwide. For example, countries with highly toxic and pollution-intensive industries could also be targeted.
While tariffs can be a tool for positive change, they need to be used alongside investments and strong environmental protections in our own country. Together, this could position the U.S. as a leader in modern manufacturing. Additionally, as a significant purchaser of goods, our government can keep those billions circulating in our own economy.
Tariffs can raise the price of imported goods if the companies importing those goods pass the extra cost onto the consumer. Given that corporate profits and CEO compensation are at an all-time high, there is no reason to think importers would pass up an opportunity to increase their margins. So if U.S. producers do not increase output to compete more aggressively against imported products with marked-up prices, consumers will face higher prices. Heightened costs to consumers are more likely when the tariffs target a variety of goods from many countries. With so many working families already facing a cost of living crisis, we have to counter potential price increases by making new investments in manufacturing.
When tariffs encourage domestic production to meet a gap in demand, policies also need to ensure that U.S. manufacturers are held to high standards. Increased production at a facility that is leaking toxic waste into the local water supply will place the community around that factory in greater danger—and allowing a facility with a history of safety violations to increase operations places the workers there at risk. We don’t have to choose between a productive manufacturing sector, clean air and water, and good jobs. Tariffs need to be accompanied by strong commitments that our factories meet high environmental protection standards, worker safety, and other safeguards.
Unfettered free trade promoted by U.S. leaders for decades sent our jobs abroad, shed key industries vital to our economic security, and worsened the environment around the world. Carefully applied, tariffs are one way to help rectify these errors.
But as the Center for American Progress notes, President Trump’s deployment of tariffs as a cudgel—an arbitrarily imposed 10% tariff on Chinese imports and a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico—would undermine sincere efforts to reform global trade policy to work for working families and fenceline communities. It would instigate tit-for-tat actions from trade partners buying key American products. This kind of retaliation then reduces the market share for American businesses and jeopardizes the stability of our hard-won jobs. Our top three export destinations are Canada, Mexico, and China, the countries Trump targets. Plus, signals from the Trump administration that it will claw back investments in American factories and roll back environmental protections will place the cost of tariffs on the health and pocketbooks of families.
We stand to lose a lot if we build our tariff policy on bluster alone. What we stand to win could change the trajectory of rural America and our economy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Michigan Legislature Should Honor Dr. King's Legacy by Rejecting an Anti-Worker Bill
The bill would limit the upward economic mobility of part-time workers and workers at businesses with less than 25 people, reduce paid time off, and strip workers of protections they may otherwise be entitled to.
Jan 25, 2025
This week, as we honor the work of and the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we must remember that to meaningfully honor his legacy means to uplift his work fighting for working class communities through race and class solidarity, his critical work in the labor movement, and his efforts to ensure people understood that racial justice was deeply intertwined with economic justice. In fact, labor rights were so deeply entrenched in Dr. King's work that it is the right of the individual worker that brought him to Memphis before he was assassinated.
In February 1968, two Memphis garbage collectors, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were crushed to death by a malfunctioning garbage truck. Following their preventable death, Black workers across the city went on strike to protest the long history of neglect and abuse of its Black employees. It was a tale as old as time: greedy CEOs and corporations with a history of forcing workers into unsafe working conditions and putting the safety of these workers at risk, and fed up labor leaders who were sick of being mistreated. Dr. King came to Memphis to show support for these striking workers, and addressed a crowd of 25,000 in Memphis.
This was not his first time standing up for the rights of the worker. While addressing the Illinois AFL-CIO in 1965, King quipped: "The two most dynamic movements that reshaped the nation during the past three decades are the labor and civil rights movements. Our combined strength is potentially enormous." And he was right. And the big corporations and wealthy elites of this country know it. That's why they have been fighting so hard against class solidarity and against worker protections
The choice before us is clear: We can stand with working families, or we can roll back essential protections that Michiganders have fought hard to secure.
We deserve an economy that works for all of us, especially working class people that are critical to keeping our economy afloat. A nation's economy must do more than just help people survive: it should take active measures to level the playing field. It should allow people to choose where and how to live. And it should enable them to pass on their wealth to the next generation.
In Michigan, instead of fighting to uplift working class families and make this vision a reality, the Michigan state legislature dishonors both their commitment to Michigan families and the legacy of MLK Jr. by working to pass an anti-worker bill known as the Earned Sick Time Act. This legislation is a red-herring claiming to fight for small businesses while stripping employees at those businesses of their rights. If passed, this bill would limit the upward economic mobility of workers at small businesses as well as part-time workers, reduce paid time off, and strip workers of protections they may otherwise be entitled to under state and federal labor laws.
In other words, this bill deprioritizes workers at a time when Michigan families, Black mothers, and caregivers of color are struggling with rising costs. With so many of us feeling the squeeze at the grocery store while searching for child or eldercare, paying rent, or helping our kids afford college, elected officials should be working to level the playing field, not widening income disparities. The choice before us is clear: We can stand with working families, or we can roll back essential protections that Michiganders have fought hard to secure. I choose to stand with working families, and I urge our elected officials in the state to do the same by voting no on the Earned Sick Time Act.
The bill's proposed changes to earned paid sick time would make it harder for workers to care for themselves and their families. Right now, more than 1.7 million Michigan workers lack access to even one hour of paid sick time. This isn't just a statistic—it represents real families in our districts making impossible choices between their health, their safety, and their paycheck. The Earned Sick Time Act would worsen this crisis by reducing protections for thousands more workers, forcing them to choose between coming into work sick and risking the health of those around them, and keeping food on the table.
The most troubling part is this fight we are faced with in Michigan is not unique. All across the country, we are seeing billionaires and dark money groups working to strip people of their rights and their ability to provide for their families. It reminds us of a very simple truth: The American Dream is not attainable for a majority of Americans, nor has it ever been. The myths politicians tell us have been harmful to real progress. They say that if you work hard enough, you too can get rich. But this "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" idea has failed us. It keeps us trapped in uncertainty and instability while the rich get richer and we fight among ourselves. That's why I am calling on Michigan leadership to ensure a bill that would further move the goalpost of what the American Dream could be does not pass. We can do better for each other than this.
A resilient economy is a collaborative effort, not a competition. We can have a nation free of bigotry, provide for people while they are ill, and help people access prosperity and opportunity. It's not a zero-sum game. Dr. King's life was a testament to this. He was dedicated to the fight for economic justice, fair wages, and labor rights, in addition to racial justice and equality. He gave everything, including his life, to this mission. We must ensure his legacy lives on by picking up his mantle. We must have the political courage to fight back against corporate interests and with the people that brought elected leaders to power.
In our interconnected world, our success depends on our neighbors' success. So let's succeed by uplifting each other. As we brace ourselves for what will come under a Trump administration, it's more important than ever that we stand together.
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
Most Popular