NEW YORK - Gov. Andrew Cuomo this week announced new measures to advance the state's Task Force to Combat Worker Exploitation, but advocates are concerned it may not be enough.

The measures include funding to coordinate outreach, investigations and prosecutions, and a new anti-retaliation unit for workers who stand up for their rights. According to Anita Halasz, executive director of Long Island Jobs with Justice, many of the workers who will benefit are immigrants.

"We definitely commend the governor for taking this very important step," she said, "because, oftentimes, immigrant workers are working in the shadows and are unable to represent themselves."

Worker advocates, however, are concerned that the additional $700,000 in funding is too little to address the problem of worker exploitation statewide.

Halasz said the state Department of Labor is recovering back pay for some workers who are victims of wage theft, but the pace is slow.

"We're looking at a lot of workers who file wage-theft claims who don't actually recover their wages for well over a year if not two years," she said, "and I think that's an indication of how underfunded a lot of these offices are."

The Task Force has opened 30 joint-agency enforcement cases across the state so far, including investigations of alleged wage theft, child labor law violations and retaliation against workers.

Dealing with exploitation on a case-by-case basis may bring a measure of justice to many workers. But Halasz said a critical step would be to make sure all workers have the right to organize and collectively bargain with employers.

"We know that ultimately a union contract really is the only way to ensure that workers have a voice on the job and that they aren't left as vulnerable to workplace exploitation," she said.

The advisory committee for the Task Force will provide recommendations by December for consideration by the Legislature in the coming year.

More information is online at ny.gov.



get more stories like this via email

California political analysts say inflation and voter confusion contributed to the failure of propositions to raise the minimum wage and allow stronger rent control.

Proposition 33 would have allowed local governments to pass strict new rent-control ordinances.

Christian Grose, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College and Price School of Public Policy, said voters may have found the measure to be overly complex.

"We did some polling on this back in September, and we found a lot of people were undecided," Grose said. "I think it's a confusing initiative for a lot of voters, and so often when people aren't certain what the effects are going to be, they'll just vote no."

Opponents of Prop. 33 argued that more rent control would discourage construction of new rental units, thus thwarting attempts to increase the supply of housing.

Proposition 32 would have raised the minimum wage to $18 an hour for companies that have 26 or more employees, and to $17 for smaller companies.

Grose called the defeat surprising, as California recently raised the minimum wage -- but only for fast-food workers.

"With inflation, there's some concerns about raising minimum wage will then lead to increased costs. So people who traditionally would support minimum wage maybe are opposed," he said.

Opponents of Prop. 32 warned it would have hurt California businesses and led to an increase in the cost of goods and services.

Keely O'Brien, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said Prop. 32 would have helped the working poor at a time when poverty is the highest it has been in years.

"In early 2023, 31% of California residents were either poor or near poor, and nearly 76% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one working adult. So these are not, these are families who are working. They're often working really hard, and they're still not. They still don't have the resources that they need," O'Brien said.

Voters in Massachusetts have passed a first of its kind ballot measure allowing rideshare drivers to unionize as independent contractors.

Question 3 narrowly passed with just 54% of the vote after a yearslong grassroots effort to gain greater protections for these gig workers.

Roxana Rivera, assistant to the president of the Service Employees International Union 32BJ in New England, called it a historic win.

"This victory will set the stage for other rideshare drivers in other states to actually have a hope to potentially change their working conditions," Rivera explained.

Rivera pointed out the ballot measure now requires at least one-quarter of current rideshare drivers to vote in favor of creating a union, which would be managed by the state legislature, much like the state's home health care workforce. There are an estimated 70,000 rideshare drivers in the state.

A majority of rideshare drivers are immigrants and people of color and Rivera argued there is no greater time for them to unionize. She noted the return of former President Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 could potentially have dire consequences for gig workers, who she stressed deserve higher pay and safety on the job.

"The drivers will be able, once they build their union, to negotiate with the app companies around better pay, around a better process for deactivations, around the working conditions they face," Rivera outlined.

Rivera added the drivers with whom she spoke are "ecstatic" about the chance to unionize. The app-based companies, Uber and Lyft, however have remained silent.

The measure also divided the labor community with some of the largest unions in the state concerned organizing as independent contractors could eventually prevent workers from attaining full-time employee status.


get more stories like this via email

As Pennsylvania voters head to the polls Tuesday, a new report takes a deep dive into how the economic policies of former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris would affect Pennsylvania families.

The report showed the two campaigns differ significantly on policies proven to affect inequality, like labor unions, the minimum wage and taxation.

Gillian Kratzer, deputy director of the advocacy group Better PA, said when comparing a possible Harris administration to a potential Trump administration, you have to consider Project 2025, as the Trump campaign has remained silent on many key policy issues, such as minimum wage.

"The Democratic platform, which Kamala Harris endorses, proposes to enact a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour by 2026," Kratzer pointed out. "The phrase minimum wage is not in the Republican platform. It's not mentioned by the Trump campaign, and it's not in Project 2025 either."

A recent Gallup poll showed 70% of Americans support labor unions. Kratzer noted while the Republican platform and Project 2025 do not address unions broadly, they advocate removing union rights for national security-related jobs and question the role of public sector unions altogether.

Kratzer added the report compares the tax policies of Trump and Harris, highlighting how extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, while higher import tariffs and a lower corporate tax rate would mostly burden Pennsylvania's everyday consumers.

"Kamala Harris supports tax proposals that benefit families and workers raising children to pay for health care and housing affordability," Kratzer observed. "She wants to reform Medicare to raise taxes on those with incomes over $400,000. Where Donald Trump, we're looking at, you know, policies that would help basically the top 5%."

The report also found the Democratic platform supports attaching strong labor standards, such as prevailing wage laws and project labor agreements, to federal infrastructure and climate investments. Meanwhile, Project 2025 favors eliminating prevailing wage laws and use of project labor agreements on federally funded construction projects.