thisfinecrew | Entries tagged with workers' rights

So the US doesn't have federal heat protections for workers; OSHA is trying to change that. Request for comment is now open, until the end of December.

This form is a streamlined version of the official one, with some suggested text, but submits to the official form: https://act.seiu.org/a/federalheatregcomments?ms=social

It has a link to the official site: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OSHA-2021-0009-4761 where you can download the whole shebang, which is Long: 3,173 kb of very light HTML, for those of us who can remember calculating fanfiction length by text file size rather than word count.

There are various Requests for Comments scattered throughout the document that you can use to focus your thoughts into something potentially more useful than just "yes this is good and necessary, and while it may not be complete it is important to get basic heat protections for as many workers as possible"; you can search the document for "Requests for Comments" and I believe find them all that way.

(via

ladybusiness)

beatrice_otter

Currently, in the US, federal law allows disabled people to be paid sub-minimum wages under certain conditions. That's right, disabled people can be paid less than the minimum wage, and it's perfectly legal! This exception was carved out of the minimum wage back when it was first implemented, because obviously nobody would ever be willing to pay disabled people a living wage, amirite? And they should be grateful to have any job at all, amirite? 😱

There is currently a bill before congress called the The Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act (TCIEA), which would end the discriminatory practice of subminimum wage, and give states and service providers the resources they need to create better employment support programs.

If you would like to contact your members of congress to encourage them to support TCIEA, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network has a handy widget to help you email them.

hermionesviolin

It was International Sex Worker Rights Day on Saturday (March 3) and I learned via Twitter that FOSTA ("Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" -- H.R. 1865) passed the House and the Senate will vote on its version (SESTA -- "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act," S. 1693) I think on March 12 though I can't now find where I found that date.

Not only do these bills conflate "sex trafficking" (which is unequivocally bad) with "sex work" (which, like all labor, can be variably exploitative/dangerous/etc. but which is in no way improved by criminalization), but it also "amends Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act to hold online publishers, apps, and services legally liable for the actions of people who post there or connect through them" (to quote a Reason article) -- 'cause who needs Internet safe harbor?

A brief phone script I saw on Twitter is: “Hi, my name is ___and I live in ___(city in district). I’m calling to urge Senator ____to vote NO on #SESTA, S. 1693 because it will lead to harm to people who trade sex, including victims of trafficking.”

If you'd rather, you could amend it to something like "because it weakens the important protections for online speech in Section 230." (more info from Electronic Frontier Foundation here -- written before the House vote)

If you're like me and want to do some more research to acquire some more talking points before you reach out to legislators (or your social media), behind the cut are some excerpts from some of the articles I've read in recent days. If folks are on Twitter, I'd encourage you to follow accounts like

swopbehindbars (SWOP = Sex Workers Outreach Project)

SupportSWRights

melissagira. For SESTA specifically, you can follow hashtags #LetUsSurvive #SurvivorsAgainstSESTA #StopSESTA.

( Read more... )

I know FOSTA already passed the House, but I emailed my rep:

I was disappointed to learn you that voted in support of H.R. 1865. I know it was advertised as a bill to protect victims of sex trafficking, but if conflates sex trafficking (which is unequivocally bad) with prostitution (which, like all labor, can be variably exploitative/dangerous/etc. but which is in no way improved by criminalization). And its proposed Section 230 changes would hurt both sex workers and people who are trafficked by pushing sex work further underground, robbing sex workers of online communities within which they can warn and be warned about dangerous clients, etc. This bill has been opposed by many sex worker and free speech organizations (as well as survivors of trafficking https://injusticetoday.com/proposed-federal-trafficking-legislation-has-surprising-opponents-advocates-who-work-with-bf418c73d5b4). I hope that, moving forward, when voting on legislation impacting sex workers, you will seek out the voices of actual sex workers (e.g., SWOP -- Sex Worker Outreach Project).

Congress.gov is not the most user-friendly website, but the Feb 27 House vote on FOSTA is here if you want to reach out to your rep about how they voted on FOSTA.

tanaqui

House Republicans revive obscure rule that allows them to slash the pay of individual federal workers to $1

House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.

The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.

Given Trump is looking to appoint many Cabinet secretaries who are at odds with the agencies they'll lead, and has already asked for details of federal staff working on particular programmes, this looks like laying the groundwork for silencing federal employees or driving them out of their current roles.

WHAT TO DO

Call your representatives to let them know you object to the Holman Rule being revived and urge them to rescind it and to vote against any amendments that make use of it.

Sample script: "Hi, my name is ________, and I'm a constituent of the Senator/Congressman/Congresswoman/Governor. I want to let Mr./Ms. (name of rep) know that I object to Congress reviving the Holman Rule, which allows members of congress to cut the pay of individual federal workers. I believe this will have a chilling effect on federal workers and limit the ability of federal agencies to effectively deliver services. I urge Mr./Ms. (name of rep) to work to rescind the Holman Rule and to vote against any amendments to appropriations bills that single out one or more specific government employees."

(If you don't already have your reps' contact info, this post has links for finding them. And for any of our members who are federal employees, or who have family/friends who are federal employees, my heartfelt sympathies that you are facing such an incredibly low blow.)

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Never Give Up, Never Surrender

Links and Positive Action for the next Four Years

Entries tagged with workers' rights

OSHA proposed regulations for worker heat protections: comment period until Dec 30, 2024

End sub-minimum wages for people with disabilities

Stop SESTA

Action: Defend federal workers from individually targeted political attacks

Profile

May 2025

Links

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags