Una nueva propuesta del Departamento de Trabajo de EE.UU. definiría claramente a los contratistas independientes. En la actualidad, la definición del Departamento de Trabajo se refiere a los contratistas independientes como "trabajadores que, por una cuestión de realidad económica, no dependen económicamente de su empleador para trabajar y están en el negocio por sí mismos".

Una nueva definición ofrecería una distinción más clara entre ellos y los empleados, quienes están cubiertos por más protecciones laborales federales.

Jack Fiorito es un distinguido profesor de la Universidad Estatal de Florida. Él explica lo que haría la nueva definición.

"El Departamento de Trabajo está diciendo que en efecto, hay demasiados casos en los que las personas son en todos los efectos prácticos, empleados," opina Fiorito. "Pero están excluidos de leyes porque técnicamente se les considera, según la parte contratante, como contratistas independientes."

Fiorito encuentra cierta oposición de parte de los empleadores que no se consideran como tales. A otros les preocupa que la economía gig decaiga, ya que los contratistas independientes se clasificarían como empleados, lo que significa que no ganarán tanto con este trabajo. El 28 de noviembre es la fecha límite para enviar comentarios al Departamento de Trabajo sobre la propuesta.

El rápido crecimiento en la última década de empresas de "gigeconomía" las cuales utilizan contratistas independientes, han hecho que esta norma sea tan necesaria. Sin embargo, podría haber algunos grandes desafíos por delante. Fiorito dice que uno de los grandes retos es que las recientes elecciones influyan para que esta propuesta se concrete.

"Si pudieran hacer algo antes de que el próximo Congreso tome posesión, dentro de un mes más o menos, probablemente seria su única oportunidad de hacerlo, asegura Fiorito. "Porque creo que el nuevo Congreso, con una mayoría republicana en la Cámara de Representantes, probablemente tratara de retroceder las regulaciones que el Departamento de Trabajo pueda estar considerando en lugar de ampliarlas."

El sigue sin estar seguro de si el nuevo Congreso se estancará en este tema o se unirá al respecto. La nueva regla tendría amplias implicaciones si se promulga. Según las estimaciones, del Departamento de Trabajo, hay alrededor de 22 punto 1 millón de contratistas independientes en todo el país.

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