Sal Luciano, President Connecticut AFL-CIO

Testimony of Sal Luciano, President Connecticut AFL-CIO

Labor and Public Employees Committee February 25, 2020

SB 227 An Act Concerning A Fair Work Week Schedule HB 5276 An Act Concerning Domestic Workers

HB 5270 An Act Concerning the Right of a Public Employee to Join or Support a Union SB 232 An Act Establishing Collective Bargaining Rights for Agricultural Workers

SB 231 An Act Concerning Workers' Compensation Benefits for Certain Medical or Emotional Impairments Suffered by Emergency Medical Services Personnel, Department of Correction

Employees and Dispatchers HB 5274 An Act Strengthening the Probate Court System HB 5273 An Act Concerning Call Centers and Notice of Closures SB 226 An Act Concerning Basic Labor Standards for Transportation Network Company Drivers

Good morning Senator Kushner, Representative Porter and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Sal Luciano and I am proud to serve as the President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, a federation of hundreds of local unions representing more than 220,000 members in the private sector, public sector, and building trades. Our members live and work in every city and town in our state and reflect the diversity that makes Connecticut great. Thank you for the opportunity to testimony on several bills important to Connecticut's working families.

SB 227 An Act Concerning A Fair Work Week Schedule Employers in many low-wage sectors often exploit employees, forcing them to work with little notice or to maintain availability for "on-call" shifts without the guarantee of actual work. These employers also commonly cancel shifts with little or no notice or send workers home early without pay when business is slow. The result is significant uncertainty and lost pay for workers and their families.

Driven exclusively by profits, these employers pay low wages, offer few, if any, benefits and provide no predictability in work hours. Thousands of Connecticut workers, many earning just minimum wage, or less if they are a tipped worker, struggle to earn a stable income because of their unpredictable work schedules.

Irregular scheduling practices cause great difficulties for thousands of motivated, hardworking employees. Without a set schedule or guaranteed number of hours, workers have a very difficult time managing household budgets. In addition, they are put in the impossible situation of arranging for reliable childcare on short notice without knowing if they will be allowed to work enough hours to pay for it. These workers can't even commit to a second job or seek additional education or skills training to improve their earning potential because "on-call" schedules will not permit it.

The burden of not knowing a work schedule in advance affects a worker's ability to arrange for childcare. The burden of not being able to rely on regular wages that come with regular hours is unnecessary. Not knowing if a worker's days off are truly off or for "on-call" work, can be significantly destabilizing for workers and their families.

1

For some workers, "on-call" means they are required to call before the beginning of their scheduled shift to find out if they are truly needed. It potentially means they could lose work hours, and therefore pay. For all of these workers, who may typically be earning near or just above minimum wage, the impact of unpredictable scheduling can be severe.

At issue is the ability for employees to have a work schedule that gives them the ability to plan their lives beyond work. The equity afforded under this legislation promises to provide these basic rights to employees. SB 227 requires retail, restaurant, hospitality and nursing home employers with 25 employees or more to:

? Provide employees fourteen days' notice of scheduling changes, including cancellations.

? Compensate employees at half-time rates for unworked hours resulting from employer-cancelled shifts or employer-mandated schedule changes within the fourteen-day period; and

? Provide employees at least 11 hours rest between shifts or compensate employees time and a half for shifts scheduled within an 11-hour window.

Businesses would be exempt from these requirements only in certain conditions, like during state-declared emergencies or public utility failures. Schedule changes made by mutual agreement of the employee and employer would also be exempt.

Employers also benefit from more traditional, scheduling practices. While employees see the short-term benefits of a more predictive work schedule, employers reap longer-term benefits, such as high levels of worker morale and productivity, reduced turnover and lower training costs.1

We urge the Committee to support this bill.

HB 5276 An Act Concerning Domestic Workers Domestic workers perform important functions in households across the state. They care for children, run errands, clean, cook, shop, and may also care for older or disabled household members. Domestic workers enable their employers ? especially women ? to go to work and support their families. Their work supports households and in turn, the overall economy. Yet, their wages are often low because they are excluded from state minimum wage protection.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 forbids employers from firing a worker for joining, organizing, or supporting a labor union. Domestic workers, most of whom were African American at the time, were exempted from the NLRA. That exemption remains today. Domestic workers were also excluded from the minimum wage and overtime pay protections afforded to workers in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. States have the ability to close gaps left by the NLRA and FLSA. HB 5276 does just that.

Failure to pay workers in domestic service less than the state minimum wage clearly diminishes the work performed by these employees. Domestic workers are largely undervalued. Their work is not considered to be as important as work performed within the confines of traditional employment. Furthermore, their duties are perceived as "woman's work," making them vulnerable to gender-based pay discrimination.

It's time that we update the statute to recognize the contributions domestic workers make to our society. Establishing a minimum wage for these workers is a key means to ensure their right to fair pay and a decent life, but so is providing them with workers' compensation coverage, paid sick leave and CHRO protections. We urge the Committee to support this bill.

1

2

HB 5270 An Act Concerning the Right of a Public to Join or Support a Union Unions raise wages and labor standards across the economy, improving the lives of all workers (union and nonunion). Unions, through collective bargaining, provide workers with a voice on the job and the freedom to make a decent living, support their families and have a secure, dignified retirement. In the public sector, collective bargaining also helps create a fairer economy. Teachers can negotiate smaller class sizes; nurses may bargain safer nurse-patient staffing ratios and first responders are able to negotiate improved health and safety protocols. These things benefit society at large.

Wealthy individuals and corporations profit greatly from an economy that only benefits the privileged and the powerful. They seek to ensure that they get richer while working people struggle to get ahead. For decades, they have tried to undermine workers' rights and their ability to collectively bargain. They have worked to advance so-called "right to work" laws designed to disempower unions by making it harder for workers to organize and build solidarity.

So-called "right to work" laws further tilt the balance of power in favor of corporations because they allow workers who decide not to be a part of a union to fully benefit from union representation--including higher wages, benefits, training, safety and protection from unfair discipline--without having to pay for it.

Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 challenged public-sector unions' ability to collect fees for the services they provide. The U.S. Supreme Court had heard two other cases previously on this issue--but neither produced the plaintiffs' desired result. It is only funding from corporate-funded foundations that these cases can repeatedly make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, the decision upended over 40 years of precedent affirming the constitutionality of fair share fees. It made all public employees "right to work."

Until it is overturned, the Janus decision will further embolden the right-wing and corporate elites in their efforts to thwart the aspirations of millions of working people standing together for a better life. It's worth noting for the record that Connecticut's public sector union membership has held steady since the Janus decision in June 2018. Many had hoped the decision would translate into a mass union exodus, especially as conservative Koch-funded organizations like The Yankee Institute actively pursue workers to drop their union membership. But eighteen months on, less than one percent of members have left their unions.i That's because they understand their voices and are stronger when they stick together. No court decision can ever take that away from them.

HB 5270 protects the rights of public employees in the post-Janus era by requiring public employers to:

? Provide access to orientations for new public employee hires, to allow the union to inform workers of their rights, benefits, duties and responsibilities. It also gives the union an opportunity to explain the representation and benefits provided to employees.

? Provide up-to-date bargaining unit lists with worksite locations and contact information, so that the union can appropriately communicate and service the members it represents.

? Clarifying the authorization process for employee payroll deductions and recognizing that the financial relationship exists between the employee and the union, not the employer.

? Maintain access to employee representation by allowing unions to meet with their members during the workday to investigate and discuss grievances, workplace complaints and other workplace issues; and

? Refrain from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of a union.

We urge the Committee to protect public employees' rights by supporting HB 5270.

SB 232 An Act Establishing Collective Bargaining Rights for Agricultural Workers: SUPPORT

3

Agricultural workers provide an indispensable service, yet their jobs are some of the most dangerous and lowest paid in the country. In addition to poor wages and little to no job security, agricultural workers experience high rates of poverty, food insecurity, sexual harassment, and mental health challenges. Most lack workers' compensation coverage, health insurance, and disability insurance.

Much of the injustice they face stems from their specific exclusion from basic protections most other workers receive. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 forbids employers from firing a worker for joining, organizing, or supporting a labor union. Agricultural workers were, and remain, exempted from the NLRA.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 created basic safeguards to ensure decent working conditions for all workers, including wage protections like the minimum wage and overtime pay. Agricultural workers were excluded from the FLSA until 1966. Even now some of the protections, such as overtime pay, do not apply to farm workers.

States have the ability to right these wrongs by filling the gaps left by the NLRA and FLSA. SB 232 would grant these hardworking Connecticut laborers the right to organize and bargain collectively. Ten states have adopted similar legislation and two (New York and New Jersey) have come to provide the same rights as a result of legal constitutional challenges.

SB 232 is a modest proposal that applies only to farms with 50 or more employees, likely exempting family-run farms. The bill also prohibits workers' and a union's ability to perform job actions or go on strike. Though an important step forward, SB 232 could go much further to ensure all agricultural workers have the right to bargain and the right to ensure their employers bargain in good faith. We encourage farm owners to view it as such.

The right to collectively bargain is about gaining respect and dignity on the job. It provides workers with a voice at work, should they choose, together with their co-workers, to exercise that right by forming a union. It does not put employers, or farms, out of business. Poor management does. We urge the Committee to support this bill.

SB 231 An Act Concerning Workers' Compensation Benefits for Certain Medical or Emotional Impairments Suffered by Emergency Medical Services Personnel, Department of Correction Employees and Dispatchers: SUPPORT Workers' Compensation was established to provide a safety net for employees who get hurt on the job. Many forget workplace injuries may not be limited to a worker's physical body, but can also impact his or her mental health and emotional wellbeing. Fortunately, history was made this spring when labor, management and legislators from both sides of the aisle came together to provide workers' compensation benefits to first responders diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of their workplace duties. We applaud those who relentlessly fought for this important reform and we can now be proud that firefighters, police officers and parole officers will get the care they need.

We urge this committee to build upon the success of Public Act 19-17. Stakeholders recognized that some deserving workers were excluded in the original bill, namely emergency medical service personnel and Department of Correction employees. We are heartened to see that emergency dispatchers have also been included.

Sadly, PTSD is a side effect of the harsh reality in which many of these employees work. Like firefighters, police officers and parole officers, EMS and Corrections personnel are regularly placed in harrowing, heartbreaking and violent situations. They experience unspeakable things on a regular basis. They are trained to protect us and save lives. They aren't always trained to process and manage the sights, sounds and smells that may torment them long after their shift ends.

Their diagnoses should be treated no differently for purposes of workers' compensation than of those covered by Public Act 19-17. Workers may not be dying of black lung in the numbers they once were, but events which contribute to PTSD are on the rise and workers should be compensated for those injuries. Such an expansion would provide peace of mind to the families of affected workers and although they may never be able to put

4

those horrific events behind them, the workers' compensation safety net will be available to help them. We encourage the Committee to support this bill.

HB 5274 An Act Strengthening the Probate Court System Probate courts, which handle the administration of estates, conservatorships, trusts, adoptions and other children's issues, were regionalized in a 2011 restructuring meant to bring uniformity and fairness to the system and to save money. Statewide, there are 54 probate courts and six regional children's probate courts.

Probate court judges are the only elected members of the Connecticut judicial branch elected. They are elected in partisan elections and hold office for four-year terms. Probate court judges have exclusive discretion in the selection and compensation of court staff. Therefore, probate court employees are at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of an elected judge. They could lose their jobs if judges they serve do not seek re-election or are defeated at the polls. They can also be fired for speaking up

In addition to having little or no job security, probate court employees are also significantly underpaid compared with state employees in similar jobs in the Judicial Branch. Their compensation and benefits are determined by the Probate Court Budget Committee, but the compensation for other Judicial Branch employees is bargained. Probate court employees pay higher health insurance premiums, have less vacation and sick time and have no ability to transfer from court to court.

Probate court employees should have the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining and to enjoy the same salaries, benefits and job security as state Judicial Branch employees in comparable positions. HB 5274 would confer those rights. We urge the Committee to support this bill.

HB 5273 An Act Concerning Call Centers and Notice of Closures: SUPPORT Connecticut has lost thousands of call center jobs in the last few years. Though they provide an important source of economic growth in local communities, no other position is as easy to move out-of-state or overseas as a call center job. When these services are outsourced to low-wage contractors, communities lose yet another large pool of family-supporting jobs. The closing of call centers also creates higher unemployment claims and costs for the state of Connecticut. Sadly, this practice has become all too common:

Since 2012, Verizon Wireless has closed 19 call centers affecting 11,000 workers. Verizon Wireless also as a long history of union busting, including shutting call centers when workers try to organize.

Wells Fargo recently laid off thousands of call center workers across the country, while its presence grew from just 100 in 2011 to more than 4,000 today, with plans to expand to an additional 7,000 employees, in the Philippines.

AT&T, which announced last year that it would move more than one hundred call center jobs from Meriden, Connecticut to Tennessee and Georgia, has eliminated more than 12,000 in-house call center jobs since 2017 and uses a network of at least 38 call centers in eight countries.

The list goes on and on. The Trump Administration's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has further incentivized moving call center jobs out of the country by lowering tax rates for offshore profits. We must act to protect Connecticut's call center jobs.

HB 5273 requires call center employers to provide at least 100 days' notice to the Department of Labor before relocating to another state or another country. Those who fail to comply could be fined up to $10,000 per day. HB 5273 also prevents call center employers that have relocated out of the state from accessing direct or indirect grants, guaranteed loans, tax benefits or other state financial support for a period of five years.

Taxpayer funds should not act as a backdoor subsidy for companies to export customer service jobs. We urge the Committee to support this bill.

5

SB 226 An Act Concerning Basic Labor Standards for Transportation Network Company Drivers Employers in an increasing number of industries misclassify their employees as independent contractors, denying them basic worker protections. If undetected, employees miss out on fair pay, health and safety, access to workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, and the right to collectively bargain for better jobs. Misclassification also hurts law-abiding employers who play by the rules but are under-bid by their competitors. Employee misclassification is a persistent problem in many growth industries and in the rapidly growing appbased "on-demand" economy. Ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft are among the most egregious employers who intentionally misclassify their employees. While companies like Uber and Lyft make huge profits, these workers often make poverty level wages. In recent years, these companies have lowered fares charged to riders, decreasing drivers' earnings. Drivers must also pay for car maintenance, insurance, and other driving-related costs out of their own pockets. After these expenses, a majority of Uber drivers make less than $10 an hour.2 SB 226 requires companies to pay drivers at least 75% of the actual amount collected from customers and allows independent contractors to sue their employers for nonpayment or underpayment of wages. It also provides a legal remedy to employees who may be terminated for coming together to confront poor working conditions. Gaps in state and federal laws leave these workers without meaningful protections. We urge the Committee to support this bill.

i

2 See Ridester, Ridester's 2018 Independent Driver Earnings Survey (last accessed March 3, 2019), . For an illustration of some drivers' actions in response to Connecticut transportation network companies, see Luther Turmelle, Connecticut ride-sharing drivers urging one-day work stoppage, NEW HAVEN REGISTER (Dec. 18, 2018), ) (illustrating Connecticut transportation network company drivers' dissatisfaction with their payment from Uber and Lyft).

6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download