Women in strenuous jobs lost their pregnancies after employers denied their requests for light duty, even ignoring doctors’ notes, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
Four states are taking unprecedented steps to strip power from Democrats and make it harder to vote.
Case Studies in Voter Suppression: Profiling Voter Suppressors
Source: Danielle Root and Aadam Barclay, Center for American Progress Action Fund, November 26, 2018
The retired candy entrepreneur Robert Welch founded the John Birch Society 60 years ago to push back against what he perceived as a growing American welfare state modeled on communism and the federal government’s push to desegregate America.
As a scholar of political history and social movements, I find many parallels between today’s far right and its predecessors. Just as the John Birch Society emerged in the midst of the civil rights movement, today’s far-right movements formed as a reaction to the election of Barack Obama – a milestone for racial equality…..
…. Even though Welch understood racism and bigotry would hurt his cause, the John Birch Society’s opposition to the civil rights movement attracted Americans sympathetic to racist paranoia. For example, it consistently published reports accusing civil rights leaders of communist subversion and alleging that people of color were plotting to divide the country and control the world. ….
…. The John Birch Society is also directly linked to conservative politics today.
Most notably, Fred Koch, the father of David and Charles Koch, was among the Birch Society’s first 11 members and its main financial backers. The billionaire Koch brothers have pumped massive amounts of money into libertarian causes and conservative political campaigns for decades. ….
Source: Fabiana Silva, Social Forces, Volume 97, Issue 2, December 2018
From the abstract:
Sociologists commonly point to jobseekers’ racially segregated networks and employers’ discriminatory behavior to explain racial inequality in employment. Network scholars argue that, given segregated networks and black and white employees’ unequal position in the labor market, employers’ reliance on employee referrals reproduces black disadvantage. Scholars of discrimination focus instead on employers’ unequal treatment of equally qualified black and white jobseekers. Drawing on an original experiment with a sample of white individuals with hiring responsibilities, I seek to bridge these literatures by examining whether respondents’ racial prejudice affects how they reward employee referrals of black and white applicants from black and white employees. I use a measure of implicit prejudice that is resistant to social desirability and that can capture biases among people who genuinely believe they are unbiased. Whether evaluated by low-prejudiced or high-prejudiced respondents, white applicants benefit greatly from same-race referrals. In contrast, black applicants do not benefit from same-race referrals, even when they are evaluated by low-prejudiced respondents. In fact, black applicants only benefit from having a referral when two conditions are met: the referring employee is white and they are evaluated by a relatively low-prejudiced respondent. These findings suggest that in addition to their disadvantage in access to employee referrals, black jobseekers suffer from a disadvantage in returns to these referrals.
From the press release:
Women today earn just 49 cents to the typical men’s dollar, much less than the 80 cents usually reported, according to a new study by economists Heidi I. Hartmann and Stephen J. Rose released today by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR).
The study, Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, uses the Panel Study on Income Dynamics, a longitudinal dataset to look at the gender earnings gaps between men and women in 15-year time spans. When measured by total earnings across the most recent 15 years for all workers who worked in at least one year, women workers faced a wage gap of 51 percent in the 2001-2015 period. The analysis also found that while the long-term earnings gap has narrowed significantly since 1968, progress has slowed in the last 15 years.
Source: John L. Utz, Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance, Vol. 44, No. 4, Winter 2019
It would not surprise me to learn that workplace sexual harassment has a history as long as that of working relationships themselves. The incidence of misbehavior may have varied with geography, work setting, or the times, but bad behavior seems obdurate. Power is intoxicating and, when combined with carnal impulses (and perhaps an executive’s inflated self-image and underdeveloped empathy for co-workers), makes possible mischief that is personally hurtful and institutionally corrosive.
The intractability of workplace sexual harassment has been noted with woe by a taskforce formed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”). That taskforce—the two co-chairs of which were EEOC commissioners—reported that studies of sexual harassment suggest 25 percent of women, at the low end, report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Select Taskforce on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, June 2016, p. 8. Also, this is the result 30 years after the Supreme Court held that workplace harassment is an actionable form of discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
Perhaps 2017 will prove to have been a watershed year, both in the effort to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment, and the effort to identify and punish wrongdoers…..
Source: Shamika D. Dalton, Gail Mathapo, and Endia Sowers-Paige, Law Library Journal, Vol. 110 no. 3, 2018
The ideal work environment provides a sense of purpose and validation. Inevitably, however, unconscious or implicit biases permeate the workplace because we all have them. These biases can be based on race, age, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, physical disability, and other characteristics. Implicit bias in the workplace can “stymie diversity, recruiting and retention efforts, and unknowingly shape an organization’s culture.” People of color, in particular, experience challenges as a result of racial microaggressions in the workplace.
Racial microaggressions are “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” Racial microaggressions may not raise an eyebrow right away, but they are harmful to the work environment. Due to their subtle nature, racial microaggressions can be “difficult to identify, quantify, and rectify.” For this reason,
Derald Wing Sue and colleagues identified three forms of racial microaggressions: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. …. For women of color, these effects are amplified as they have to endure both racial and gender microaggressions in the workplace. ….
During the 2018 midterm elections, voter participation was more than 10 percentage points higher than it was in the 2014 midterm elections, demonstrating Americans’ demand for change and increased enthusiasm for exercising their civic duty to vote. That said, nearly 120 million eligible Americans did not participate in the November elections.
Widespread voter suppression—particularly against historically marginalized groups—is a reoccurring problem in the United States. Each election cycle, untold numbers of eligible Americans are prevented from voting due to barriers in the voter registration process, restrictions on casting ballots, and discriminatory and partisan-rigged district maps. Voter suppression measures can differ by state and even by individual county. And while some voter suppression measures actively seek to discriminate against certain groups, others result from innocent administrative errors and glitches. Regardless of its form or intent, however, voter suppression is relentlessly effective in preventing voting-eligible Americans from contributing to the electoral process.
This year—perhaps uncoincidentally—severe voter suppression occurred in states with highly competitive political races, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Dakota. Policies and practices that limit participation by even a few thousand votes can mean the difference between victory and defeat in competitive elections. When voters cast a ballot, they expect their votes to matter in choosing representatives who are responsive to, reflective of, and accountable to the communities they represent. Yet when voter suppression occurs, election results may be less reflective of constituents’ actual will.
This report describes some of the voter suppression measures and other Election Day problems that potentially kept millions of eligible Americans from participating in the 2018 midterm elections. These include:
1. Voter registration problems
2. Voter purges
3. Strict voter ID and ballot requirements
4. Voter confusion
5. Voter intimidation and harassment
6. Poll closures and long lines
7. Malfunctioning voting equipment
8. Disenfranchisement of justice-involved individuals
This report also offers recommendations for combating voter suppression and making voting more convenient for all eligible Americans.
But the midterms showed that voting rights may finally be a political winner.
…..Voters in Georgia and other states faced onerous barriers to performing their civic duty this year. As these voters were running into obstacles, residents of other states were passing ballot measures to strike down voting restrictions and make voting easier for many more people. These parallel worlds mean voting in America today looks a lot like it did more than half a century ago. We’re becoming two Americas again: one where casting a ballot is a breeze, and another where it’s a pitched battle…..
From the press release:
Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) civil rights organization, in partnership with the Equality Federation Institute, announced that a record-setting 78 cities across the nation earned perfect scores in the seventh annual Municipal Equality Index (MEI), meeting the most demanding and pioneering criteria since the report’s debut in 2012. The MEI is the only nationwide rating system of LGBTQ inclusion in municipal law, policy and services.
The 2018 MEI evolved dramatically this year, instituting new benchmarks ensuring equal access to single-user facilities in public spaces, as well as protecting LGBTQ youth from bullying in city services and from dangerous so-called “conversion therapy.” Additionally, this year the MEI deducted points for laws that include provisions licensing discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
But even with these more stringent MEI requirements, cities and municipalities are meeting and exceeding our standards with innovative measures to protect LGBTQ people. A record 78 cities earned perfect scores for advancing LGBTQ-inclusive laws and policies — up from 68 in 2017 and 11 in 2012, the first year of the MEI. And in the current political reality, welcoming cities like these are more important than ever….