PORTLAND, Ore. -- Challenges due to the COVID-19 outbreak are showing why employees at the Portland International Airport need more support, workers say.

Airport workers, including the folks who push wheelchairs, clean airplane cabins and help with baggage, are calling on the Port of Portland to institute a worker bill of rights.

It includes annual cost-of-living wage increases, affordable health care and a paid sick-leave policy.

Airport worker Ben Deines says the last item has become especially important. He says in the past, workers have come to work despite being sick.

"But obviously with coronavirus going around, you can't really do that," he states. "And the manager has requested that anybody who feels sick should stay home, but if you don't have a lot of sick days, then you're in a really bad situation."

Oregon requires employers to offer five paid sick days. The bill of rights is asking for an additional three days off and premium pay for holiday work.

The Port of Portland says it will be reviewing these recommendations, noting most airport employees work for a tenant or subcontractor rather than the Port.

Maggie Long, executive director of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 49, says other airports along the West Coast, including in San Francisco and Los Angeles, have passed worker bills of rights.

Although there are a few avenues, she says the union prefers to see the Port of Portland pass these policies so they're available to a wide swath of workers.

Long asks if the airport won't do it now, when will it happen?

"They didn't want to do this two years ago when airlines were making record profits and traffic was high at PDX and they suddenly don't want to do this now that we're in this crisis," she points out. "So the time is now."

Deines says the Portland airport touts itself as the best airport in the country, but it needs to step up for its workers in order to support that claim.

"We all need to be paid well, we all deserve access to health care because if we're stressed out about those things from month to month then we can't do our best in our jobs," he stresses

A Colorado law passed in 1943 amid intense big-business and white-supremacist campaigns to block worker organizing has suppressed unionization in the state, according to a new report.

Jennifer Sherer, deputy director of state policy and research at the Economic Policy Institute and the report's co-author, said state lawmakers have an opportunity to level the playing field at a time when a growing number of workers are looking to unions to improve working conditions, wages and address rapidly growing economic inequality.

"Colorado is one of the states in the country that still has a very old law on the books that creates obstacles for workers who want to form unions," Sherer pointed out. "This year, the Legislature is looking at finally repealing that very old law."

Under current law, if Colorado workers vote to unionize, they must then call a second election and win by a supermajority of 75%, in order to negotiate a contract with their bosses. Senate Bill 5 to repeal the old law has 392 registered lobbyists and fewer than one in four support the bill that cleared the Senate and now heads to the House.

Sherer noted requiring two elections means Colorado workers face extra obstacles to unionizing, on top of opposition from what has become a union-busting industry. Employers have been charged with violating federal labor laws in four out of 10 union elections.

"Too often, employers are stepping over the line and illegally disciplining, firing, threatening or retaliating against workers when they try to organize," Sherer explained. "There are very few consequences when employers do that."

Colorado's union membership is now 22% below the national average, in line with antiunion states with so-called right-to-work laws in place. Sherer added the effects of low unionization rates on Colorado workers are also similar.

"Workers end up with lower wages, fewer benefits, less safe workplaces," Sherer outlined. "As union membership has declined in recent years, income inequality across the state is increasing at a really rapid pace."


get more stories like this via email

This Sunday, most of the United States will "spring forward" for daylight saving time, which means losing an hour of sleep.

Dr. Deepa Burman, associate professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Pediatric Sleep Evaluation Center at the University of Pittsburgh, said the time change disrupts the body's internal, social and natural clocks, and can lead to irritability and mood issues. She pointed out research also links the shift to workplace and economic effects.

"Studies have shown that in the United States, we actually lose anywhere from $400 million to $600 million a year because of not only loss of workplace productivity, because people are more tired at their workplace, but also increased calls of absenteeism," she said.

Burman noted the American Academy of Sleep Medicine supports permanent "standard time," arguing it is better for people's internal clocks. Some describe "springing forward" for daylight saving time as like shifting to a new time zone without traveling.

Burman emphasized daylight saving time may also be harmful to some people's health, as research has shown the chances of heart attack go up by 6% when people lose that hour of sleep.

"There is an increased risk of stroke by around 8%," Burman added. "Motor vehicle accidents actually increase by 6% in the week following the time change."

Burman recommended Pennsylvanians try adjusting to time changes with small steps, such as shifting your bedtime by 15 minutes each night before the time change, update nondigital clocks the night before, get plenty of morning light and dim screens in the evening.

Advocates for people with disabilities in Tennessee are concerned about the potential impact of a lawsuit challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Texas-led case, Texas v. Becerra, could weaken protections against discrimination for people with disabilities in federally funded programs.

Donna DeStefano, assistant executive director of the Tennessee Disability Coalition, warned that rolling back these protections could lead to widespread exclusion for people with disabilities. She emphasized that Section 504 has been a key Civil Rights law ensuring equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

"If somebody comes into a school situation or a health-care situation and has a disability, they're not automatically denied," she explained. "Pre-Section 504, there was no legal reason that people could not be discriminated against, and they were."

DeStefano noted that Section 504 was one of the first laws to support disabled civilians, thanks to Judy Heumann and fellow activists. Their record-breaking sit-in helped secure protections against disability discrimination in federally funded programs.

DeStefano noted anyone receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on disability. During COVID, some people with disabilities were denied treatment at medical facilities, which violates Section 504. This led some states to update their crisis care standards to prevent discrimination.

"This law protects that, and this law looks now at increasing accessibility in medical equipment," she continued. "There are things like examination tables that are accessible, that can go up and down. There are weight scales that people could roll onto, if they were in a wheelchair."

DeStefano said Section 504 bans discrimination against people living with a disability by the federal government. This law, which predates the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, ensures equal access. Eliminating Section 504 would remove key protections and allow disability-based discrimination.