Let Them Eat Bed Pans! Jerry Brown Vetoes Domestic Workers Bill of Rights

Jerry Brown's Buffet for Domestic Workers (Image from Flickr, by dirty black chucks)

California’s “pro-labor” governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB 889), authored by Tom Ammiano (San Francisco) and Fiona Ma (Oakland). The law would have allowed nannies, maids, home health care workers and other full-time domestic workers to cook their own meals in their employers’ kitchens and entitled them to the same overtime pay, guaranteed breaks, sick leave and workers compensation privileges already granted to most other workers.

According to a report by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 90% of the domestic workforce (93% of whom are female) has never received overtime pay. Over 90% reported having their meal breaks cut short or denied entirely. 75% of the child care workers and 35% of the housekeepers in Los Angeles County were paid less than the minimum wage.

Yet, even if the law had passed, domestic workers would have remained among the lowest paid and most abused employees in the state. The law said nothing about a reasonable living wage. Rather, it said that “the Department of Industrial Relations may (emphasis added by Modern School) apply the provisions of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15 to domestic work employees,” which would have meant that the state minimum wage might be paid to domestic workers. Yet even if they were paid the minimum wage, this would not be sufficient to support a family in most of the state’s expensive cities.

AB 889 would have done very little to improve the status or material security of domestic workers, but, even so, it was too much for the private health care industry, which feared that these new rights would lower their bottom lines. It was also too much for some organizations representing recipients of home health care which feared that the quality of their constituents’ care would be diminished. However, the solution isn’t to treat domestic workers like serfs. Domestic services can and should be fully subsidized by the rest of society for those who need their services, but cannot afford them.

Then again, if we lived in a sane society, everyone would have equal access to whatever medical care they needed, as well as all the other necessities of life, and no one would be working for minimum wage or fighting for the right to a lunch break.

Abuse With Benefits for Domestics in Liberal California

California’s legislature will be voting this week on a piece of legislation (AB 889), dubbed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which was authored by San Francisco Democrat Tom Ammiano and Oakland assemblywoman Fiona Ma. The new law would allow nannies, maids, home health care workers and other full-time domestic workers to cook their own meals in their employers’ kitchens and entitle them to the same overtime pay, guaranteed breaks, sick leave and workers compensation privileges already granted to most other workers.

These are certainly important new protections that these workers have been denied up until now. According to a report by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 90% of the domestic workforce (93% of whom are female) has never received overtime pay. Over 90% reported having their meal breaks cut short or denied entirely. 75% of the child care workers and 35% of the housekeepers in Los Angeles County were paid less than the minimum wage. Domestic workers are also often subjected to physical and verbal abuse, in addition to the long hours and low pay.

However, even with these changes, domestic workers will remain among the poorest paid workers in the state.

The new law says very little about a reasonable living wage. What it says is vague: “The Department of Industrial Relations may (emphasis added by Modern School) apply the provisions of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15 to domestic work employees.”  Wage Order 15 calls for the state minimum wage to be paid to workers covered by the law. AB 889 would include domestic workers under Wage Order 15 and, according to the wording, “may” require they be paid the state minimum. However, even if the state requires the current minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, domestic workers would still not be earning enough to support a family with any sort of material security or wellbeing.

Attempts to increase the rights and privileges of domestic workers has traditionally been opposed by private health care and homecare organizations, as well as some disability and seniors’ rights groups, out of fear that such rights would impact their bottom lines (in the case of the healthcare organizations) or reduce the quality of their care (in the case of disabled people and seniors).

Both of these perspectives are absurd. Private businesses can (and do) make handsome profits without violating labor laws. AB 889 would merely extend existing labor protections to domestic workers.

The wellbeing of seniors, disabled people, children and others who depend on the services of domestic workers, of course, should be a significant concern. Many of these are private employers of domestic workers and, at the same time, many are also living on minimal fixed incomes. Yet this should not entitle them to deny their employees basic workplace rights or pay them so little. Rather, like most social services, the state needs to dramatically increase taxes on the wealthy and their businesses to generate sufficient revenue to provide generous domestic services to everyone who needs it AND generously compensate those who do this work.

Sodexo Wins Sweetheart Contract with Northwestern University Food Service Workers

The French cafeteria and food concession giant, Sodexo, infamous for abusing workers here and abroad, has just reached a contractual agreement with food service workers at Northwestern University's dining halls and Norris University Center food court. The new contract includes reduced and free health care and a minimum $10 wage, according to the Daily North Western.

The university said it was pleased with the contract, which should be no surprise, considering that a minimum wage of $10 per hour is a poverty wage, not much higher than the national minimum wage of $7.25, and about as low as any employer could hope to legally achieve. Though Northwestern is not a party to the agreement, which is between Sodexo and their employees, the university contracts their food services to Sodexo and benefits from the low wages since lower wages allow Sodexo to offer cheaper services to the university.

According to the new contract, wages will be incrementally increased over four years, eventually reaching a “living wage” of $10 per hour for all workers currently making less than this. The health benefits are expected to significantly reduce the costs of health care for employees, which increase their take home pay.

The biggest gains will be for the lowest paid employees. This has angered some of the higher paid employees, who feel the new contract doesn’t do much for them. The final vote was 118-18 in favor of the new contract, with several workers abstaining and several others not being given long enough breaks to vote.

Ultimately, if $10 per hour is an improvement for workers, the new contract could be seen as a step forward. However, contrary to the glowing statements from union officials, this can hardly be seen as a “significant victory,” as $10 per hour is nowhere near sufficient for a family of four or even a single individual to live comfortably and securely in this society. It is not even close to the union’s initial demand of $13.23, which the Living Wage Committee calculated as the living wage for Sodexo workers at Northwestern. If anything, $10 per hour should be seen as a significant concession to the bosses.

Considering that Sodexo CEOs are earning 7 figure salaries and the company grosses billions of dollars each year, $10 per hour seems like a pretty low salary. On the other hand, how else could the company earn so much without squeezing its employees as tightly as possible?