PORTLAND, Ore. -- The Port of Portland has outlined pay raises for airport workers including baggage handlers, wheelchair assistants and airplane cleaners.
But workers said the raises need to come sooner.
Service Employees International Union Local 49 members are also asking for more paid sick days beyond the five mandated by Oregon.
Maggie Long, executive director of Local 49, said the lack of sick days is especially dangerous as COVID-19 cases surge and that pay increases can't wait while the pandemic places more financial stress on workers.
"I think it falls far short of what this moment calls for," Long contended. "And so while we're excited to see a step forward here, we are demanding that the port do more in this moment."
Port of Portland commissioners will require contractors, which employ about 900 airport workers, to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by July 2021, and $16.55 cents by 2022.
At a Port Commission meeting on Wednesday, some commissioners expressed concern airlines are not in a financial position to increase wages sooner or add more paid sick days.
At the commission meeting, SEIU Local 49 member Donald Martin gave testimony on the dire financial situations facing many of his co-workers.
Martin, a passenger service agent for Huntleigh USA, which assists people in wheelchairs, said many workers come to work sick because they can't afford to miss getting paid.
"You don't get paid if you don't work, and that's not an option," Martin asserted. "That means eviction and sleeping on the street. Already, I've known many airport workers who have slept in their car or crashed on someone's couch because they can't afford rent, even working full time."
Long noted airlines received a bailout from Congress in the CARES Act this year, while workers faced furloughs and reduced hours.
She stressed the lack of greater support for airport workers ultimately is a racial justice issue.
"It is Black, Brown workers in high-exposure jobs who are feeling the brunt of this pandemic," Long remarked.
During Wednesday's commission meeting, SEIU Local 49 workers held a car caravan at the airport and called on commissioners to pass an airport workers' "Bill of Rights" for higher wages, more paid sick days and access to affordable health care.
Disclosure: SEIU Local 49 contributes to our fund for reporting on Livable Wages/Working Families, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.
David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.
"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.
The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.
Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.
"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.
Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.
get more stories like this via email
The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.
Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.
"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.
Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.
Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.
"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.
Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.
get more stories like this via email
Washington joins a handful of states to do away with mandatory meetings for employees on political or religious matters.
Sometimes known as captive audience meetings, the gatherings were seen as a way for employers to give their opinions on subjects like unionization, and held potential consequences for employees who didn't attend. Lawmakers passed a bill this session allowing workers to skip the meetings without repercussions.
Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, a sponsor of the bill, said we live in a divided society where emotions run high on political topics.
"This bill simply protects employees to have a real choice on whether or not to attend a meeting called by their boss to be told about some political or religious issue," Keiser explained.
Keiser pointed out the legislation is nonpartisan. For instance, employers could not force employees to attend anti-union meetings, but also could not force them to attend a meeting about the importance of reproductive rights. The bill takes effect June 6.
Keiser noted the bill likely got across the finish line this session because of the uptick in union organizing and support for labor. She added there are widely known stories of Starbucks managers, for example, requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings while the employees organized the workplace.
"Employees have been forced to attend meetings to listen to the boss or the employer basically tell them why they shouldn't join a union," Keiser observed.
Washington is the sixth state to pass a law prohibiting attendance at captive audience meetings. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota and New York have passed similar laws in recent years. Oregon passed a law allowing workers to skip such meetings without repercussions in 2010.
get more stories like this via email