unnamed

US prosecutors target construction firms that “institutionalise theft” from their own workers

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

A recent spate of criminal prosecutions in New York and California against builders who don’t pay their workers the agreed wage suggests a hardening mood against corporate graft in the country.

27 June 2018 | By GCR Staff

In one case, a luxury home-builder in Manhattan has been charged with stealing more than $1.7m from 500 workers through payroll tricks.

Previously, failure to pay the correct wage was treated as a civil matter, putting the onus on the worker to bring a suit against their employer. But now state prosecutors seem more willing to treat the issue as a violation of criminal law.

Diana Florence, an assistant district attorney (DA) in Manhattan, said the aim was to stop companies in industries that rely on lots of low paid workers from “institutionalising theft as a business model”.

The new approach was illustrated most recently last week when authorities in New York announced that a Brooklyn construction company had pleaded guilty to second-degree grand larceny for underpaying 21 employees.

The Urban Group then made full restitution of $303,411 to the workers, all of whom were immigrants.

Contractors on public sector projects often commit to paying wages as a certain rate, and this case revolved around Urban’s falsely certifying that it had paid employees on a public schools contract at the prevailing wage rates of $63 an hour when in reality it had paid between $10 and $17, and had offered no overtime or benefits.

The discrepancy was revealed when the company was forced to post the legal wage on signs around its worksites.

As well as making restitution, Urban was debarred from public work in New York state as a contractor or subcontractor for five years.

(Read More)

State Attorneys General can play key roles in protecting workers’ rights

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

Report * By Terri Gerstein and Marni von Wilpert * May 7, 2018

Summary

State attorneys general can be key allies in protecting workers’ rights. While there are variations in the structure, resources, and jurisdiction of state attorney general offices, these offices often have a range of powers that can enable them to play a key role in advancing and defending workplace protections by ensuring that employers comply with the law. This report describes some of the ways state attorneys general have been involved in protecting workers’ rights.

Introduction: Broader state enforcement is needed to enforce workers’ rights laws

Working people in America are being shortchanged: They are working harder, but inequality is rising and wages for all but the highest-paid workers are failing to keep up with economywide productivity growth (Gould 2018). Even worse, many workers are not being paid what they are owed by their employers. The failure to enforce workers’ rights laws has resulted in billions of dollars in wages being stolen from workers’ paychecks (Levine 2018; McNicholas, Mokhiber, and Chaikof 2017). For example, in the 10 most populous states in the country, each year 2.4 million workers covered by state or federal minimum wage laws report being paid less than the applicable minimum wage in their state-approximately 17 percent of the eligible low-wage workforce.

The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)-the federal agency responsible for enforcing minimum wage and overtime laws-has been stretched increasingly thin. The number of payroll jobs in the U.S. is more than three times as large as it was in the 1940s-146.6 million in 2017 compared with 45.0 million in 1948-but the number of wage and hour investigators at WHD has remained essentially the same (BLS various years). In 1948, WHD employed one investigator for every 22,600 covered workers; today, WHD has only one per every 135,000 workers (Cooper and Kroeger 2017). As a result, the agency’s ability to effectively police violations of labor law has suffered: from 1980 to 2015, the number of wage and hour violation cases WHD investigated decreased by 63 percent (Cooper and Kroeger 2017).

Moreover, the decline in union rates has put more workers at risk of labor law violations. Workers not covered by unions-those who are neither in a union nor covered by a union contract-are almost twice as likely (4.4 percent) to experience minimum wage violations as those in a union or covered by a union contract (2.3 percent) (Cooper and Kroeger 2017). And unions continue to be under attack: Trump’s budget blueprint calls for funding cuts to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with upholding private-sector workers’ rights to organize and join unions (Opfer 2018).

These staffing shortages and funding cuts show that the Trump administration is not making enforcement of our nation’s labor laws a priority. To protect workers’ rights to fair pay and fair treatment on the job, funding and resources for federal labor and employment law enforcement agencies need to increase dramatically. In addition, state governments can and should take up the fight to protect workers’ basic rights on the job. State labor departments are usually the primary enforcer of state labor laws, but there are other governmental entities that can and do engage in worker protection activities, including state attorney general offices.

This report explores the ability of state attorneys general to take up enforcement of our labor laws and protection of workers’ rights. By examining enforcement actions among a number of states, this report highlights the various ways state attorneys general exercise jurisdiction to protect workers and enforce labor laws.

(Read More)

(PDF Copy of Full Report)

Gary Frueh: Need for prevailing wage

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

POSTED ON JULY 1, 2018
Gary Frueh – Guest Columnist

There is a lot of discussion lately on prevailing wage. It is important to understand more about prevailing wage. Wages are set for areas according to living standards. You wouldn’t want to pay construction wages based on New York City or Los Angeles in Lima, Ohio. Many different entities do this, including health care providers. It just sets wages prevalent to an area.

Does prevailing wage, tend to raise wages some? It sets standards for an area. Training programs that assure work being done is both accurate and efficient under prevailing wage. Otherwise, it becomes an item to undercut the bidding process.

Let’s get to the heart of the issue. To say work done is better or worse under prevailing wage needs background.

A past study out of the University of Utah prepared for the Kansas State Senate Labor and Industries Committee stated these facts when prevailing wage was removed in Kansas:

* Wage incomes in Kansas construction fell 10%. Employer pension and health insurance contributions fell 17%

* Construction workers covered by collective bargaining in Kansas received health insurance and employer contributions, only 10% of workers in open shop received pension and only 4% received health insurance from their employer.

* Apprenticeship training in Kansas construction fell 38% after repel. Minority apprenticeships fell by 54%.

* Serious injury rates in Kansas construction rose by 21%

* The projected gain from repel a 6% to 17 % savings on state construction costs failed to materialize.

…

Why does prevailing wage make sense. It establishes a wage scale that is harder to manipulate and consistent with living costs of an area. Think of it this way. All our State Legislators are paid a specific wage. While the cost of living in Cleveland is much higher than Lima the legislator is paid the same. The taxpayer is bearing the burden of paying one too much or one not enough. In any case a prevailing wage scenario might fit their circumstance very well.

There are good reasons to keep prevailing wage laws in protecting the consumer, taxpayers and the communities from bearing the burden of increasing taxes on its residents to make up for losses incurred as past factual studies on prevailing wage have shown.

(Read More)

dispatcher-12

Seventh Circuit Revisits Contractor Misclassification

Posted by National Alliance for Fair Contracting on

Thursday, June 28, 2018
Hannesson Murphy

Courts in the U.S. have been grappling with the misclassification of independent contractors for more than 20 years. As our readers well know, there is no standardized test to determine whether a worker is a contractor. Various courts and government agencies all have adopted their own criteria. Fortunately, most of them overlap, but there can be critical differences in the factors and how they are applied.

In 2015, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) firmly supported the “economic realities” test as part of a government sponsored misclassification initiative. While not breaking new ground by adopting the test, the DOL’s pronouncement did create somewhat of a splash at the time because it deliberately downplayed the relative importance of control over a worker – which previously had been viewed as the most important aspect of the contracting relationship. See Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1 (July 15, 2015). In the years since its issuance, the DOL’s advisory opinion largely has been sidestepped by several tribunals charged with examining the issue in favor of their own well-worn standards.

A decision by the Seventh Circuit last week, Simpkins v. DuPage Housing Authority, appears to be the latest in that trend. In the case, Anthony Simpkins dutifully signed “independent contractor agreements” with the DuPage Housing Authority, in 2009 and again in 2012, to perform general labor, such as carpentry, maintenance, demolition and remodeling, on some vacant properties to get them ready for new occupants. This was a full time job, but provided no benefits and Simpkins was responsible for his own taxes. While the housing authority claimed he had the discretion on how to perform the job as he saw fit, the housing authority directed him on which jobs to perform and prioritized the order in which he would need to complete them. Simpkins objected to his status and repeatedly asked to be reclassified as an employee so he could get benefits, but his efforts were rebuffed.

After Simpkins was injured in a car accident, he filed suit to recover unpaid overtime and disability benefits under the FLSA, as well as under Illinois state law. The district court agreed with the housing authority that Simpkins was a contractor and granted summary judgment. On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit reversed.

(Read More)

Simpkins v. DuPage Housing Authority, No. 17-2685 (7th Cir. 2018)