Maryland has a horrible hiring problem for working class jobs. It is completely being handed off to temporary agencies, national contractors who bring people from Right to Work states, and tons of hiring and exploitation of immigrant labor. It is as bad as it gets. It is also why it is hard to organize and why people are so afraid to shout out against the abuse. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY FOLKS!!!!! GET MAD AND START SHOUTING!!! We have a democratically elected Mayor wanting to throw public pensions into 401Ks just as if she was a republican knowing these accounts are prey for Wall Street. The capture is there but we can easily turn this around as we RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!!!
The bill below has loopholes that a MACK truck will drive through as explained in an article either in the Sun of Maryland Daily Record. The ability of the Board of Estimate lawyers to write reasoning for exceptions is the rule in Baltimore.....no labor laws are enforced because of exceptions. If you read this bill it clearly gives the Board leeway to exempt from consideration this law on individual basis and that is what is done as regards Living Wage laws, hiring and taxation laws, etc.
I wanted to show how the wording of this bill will lead to circumvention even if lawsuits are not the culprit. If you follow the weekly trials and tribulations that are Board of Estimate bid awards you know that it is institutional practice to have original bids extended time and again in order to keep these project amounts under these terms of $300,000 or the $5 million in city assistance. That is how this Board gets around all labor requirements in bids and it is how the process has become corrupted. So, even if Nilson, the mayor's lawyer is worried about the legal aspects of the law, the people are already dealing with illegally awarded bids through the legalese of the finance department lawyers!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!
RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!!!!
From a Maryland Daily Record article:
Nilson said the goals of the proposed bill, under which any person who "has a contract with the City for more than $300,000" or "will benefit from more than $5,000,000 in assistance for a City subsidized project" would have to ensure that at least 51 percent of the jobs required for a project be filled by residents of the city, could be accomplished "on an administrative basis" rather than through legislation.
This bill is nothing but fluff to make it appear as though the City Council whose constituents are the minorities being denied work think that something is being done. If you look at the law that was supposed to allow for Baltimore's population of felons work in casinos.....that law never happened..it became a law for people who commit fraud to work in casinos. Remember, most of Baltimore's felons are not really felons. They are only guilty of non-violent crimes and many are simply homeless people getting ticketed into felony status. That is what this City Council was expected to address in this hiring of locals.....and they gave us fluff yet again. The shame is incredible!!
Council OKs bill that would force contractors to hire city residents 'We need to get Baltimore to work,' says Council President Bernard C. 'Jack' Young
By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun 8:16 p.m. EDT, May 13, 2013
In a unanimous vote, the City Council gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill that would require businesses getting large city contracts or financial support to hire 51 percent of new workers from Baltimore.
"My council colleagues believe this is a fair thing to do," Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young, the bill's lead sponsor, said after the vote. "We have an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. We need to get Baltimore City to work. There are qualified people in this city that can do these jobs."
The city's law department has challenged the legislation — calling it unconstitutional — and some businesses object to what they believe is a burdensome requirement. The bill is scheduled for a final vote at the council's next meeting June 3.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has said she wants to see the final version before deciding whether she will veto the bill or sign it over her law department's objections.
Under an amendment approved Monday, Young's bill would not take effect until six months after the legislation is enacted. Young said he and Rawlings-Blake met Friday to discuss the legislation, and he offered the six-month grace period as a compromise.
The measure would apply to a business receiving any city contract worth at least $300,000 or to any project that gets at least $5 million in city assistance. It would require that 51 percent of the company's new jobs go to city residents. Businesses that did not comply could be barred from receiving city contracts for a year and face a $500 fine.
The law department said in a letter to council members that enacting hiring preferences based on residence would put the city in a "legally indefensible" position and violate the U.S. Constitution's privileges and immunities clause, which bars one state from discriminating against the residents of another. City Solicitor George Nilson has said that if the bill becomes law, he expects the city would lose any lawsuits filed against it.
But Young noted that Boston and San Francisco have similar local hiring programs, calling them models for Baltimore. The legislation is needed, he said, to help Baltimore overcome the effects of the nationwide economic downtown. City unemployment remains persistently high. It was 9.6 percent in March — the latest figures available — compared with 5.2 percent in March 2008.
"We have union workers who are trained and skilled that don't have work right now as we speak," Young said.
Fewer than 20 city-supported projects top the bill's $5 million mark, but many businesses get city contracts in excess of $300,000. This week, for instance, the city Board of Estimates is set to approve the qualifications of 13 businesses to receive contracts greater than that amount.
Waivers could be issued, on a case-by-case basis, under certain conditions, Young said. For instance, if a company could demonstrate it made a "good faith" effort to hire city residents but couldn't find enough with the necessary skills, it could avoid a penalty. Businesses that are located — and perform their work — outside the area would be eligible for waivers, a provision that supporters believe satisfies legal objections.
Several organizations, including the Job Opportunities Task Force, Associated Black Charities and the Baltimore Jewish Council, submitted testimony in favor of the bill, citing the benefits of bolstering hiring for city residents.
There is a reason Basu skimmed past the category of independent contractor "that isn't included in these stats'.....it is an exploding job classification across all business sectors. Can you imagine leaving out one of the largest classifications? Why would Basu do that?
Well, it is because this classification pushes the worker out from the protections that come with working for a corporation and places all of the cost and and risk on the worker maximizing corporate profits to the highest in American history while impoverishing the American worker to lowest since the Great Depression. See why a Third Way corporate economist would want to make that the news on what is supposed to be a public media station? The designation of independent contractor means the worker pays all of the taxes like payroll and all of the insurance and professional licensing fees, all while being paid record low wages for all career fields. See why corporations are rolling in profit and why the economy is stagnant? No money for consumption.
Maryland is king in this business as everyone, from low-wage taxi drivers to mid-wage nursing get this treatment. Third Way corporate democrats like Maggie McIntosh, Mary Washington, Anthony Brown, and Martin O'Malley.....but the list includes almost all of Maryland democratic incumbents.....champion this impoverishment of labor for the benefit of corporate profit. Laws could be in place to deter this practice and simple Rule of Law enforcement would find many workers forced to take this designation are made to illegally.....that's right, fraud and corruption in yet another business sector in Maryland as businesses falsely assign the label of independent contractor to workers knowing that Maryland has no oversight to detect corporate fraud.
Labor – Overtime and Independent Contractors Posted by admin on January 17, 2011 California Overtime Rules
Employers often hire workers and categorize them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime, taxes, and complying with other federal and state labor and employment related laws. In overtime cases the courts and the administrative agencies do not automatically accept the idea that a worker is not entitled to overtime rights by simply categorizing the worker as an independent contractor. The workers are more often than not still employees and can file overtime claims.
The test to determine if a worker is an independent contractor is based primarily on the principal’s right to direct and control the manner and means by which the work is performed. It does not mean the employer has to exercise these rights. If the principal has the right to control then the worker will be an employee, even if the employer never actually exercises the control. When the principal does not have the right of direction and control over the worker, then the worker is independent contractor. The question in most cases is what does the right to control mean.
1. Do you instruct or supervise the worker while the worker is working ?
Independent contractors are free to jobs in any way they see fit. It is the end result that matters for independent contractors. If there are company procedures or if the worker is given specific instructions on how to do the work, then chances are that the worker is an employee.
2. Can you fire the worker at any time or can the worker quit at any time without notice ?
If you have the right to fire the worker without notice, it strongly shows that you have the right to control the worker. Independent contractors are hired for specific jobs and cannot be fired until the job is complete. Independent contractors are not free to quit with little or no notice.
3. Is the work performed part of your regular business?
Work which is a necessary part of the regular trade or business is normally done by employees and not something that would be subcontracted. Something that is done occasionally would be considered work done by independent contractor. Regularly answering the phone to take orders would not be done by an independent contractor.
4. Does the worker have a separately established business?
Independent contractors hold themselves out to the general public as available to perform services similar to those performed for the principal, this is evidence that the individuals are operating separately established businesses and would normally be
independent contractor. Independent contractors are also free to hire employees and assign the work to others in any way they choose and fire their employees fire their employees without your knowledge consent. Independent contractors normally advertise their services and seek new customers through the use of business cards.
5. Is the worker free to make business decisions which affect the worker’s ability to profit from the work?
An individual is normally an independent contractor when he or she is free to make business decisions which impact his or her ability to profit or suffer a loss. This involves real economic risk, not just the risk of not getting paid.
6. Does the individual have a substantial investment which would subject him or her to a financial risk of loss?
Independent contractors furnish the tools, equipment, and supplies needed to perform the work. Independent contractors normally have an investment in the items needed to complete their tasks.
7. Do you have employees who do the same type of work?
If the work being done is basically the same as work that is normally done by your employees, it indicates that the worker is an employee.
8. Do you furnish the tools, equipment, or supplies used to perform the work?
Independent business people furnish the tools, equipment, and supplies needed to perform the work.
9. Is the work considered unskilled or semi-skilled labor?
The courts and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board have held unskilled or semi-skilled are the type of workers the law is meant to protect and are generally employees.
10. Do you provide training for the worker?
When training is required to do the task, it is an indication that the worker is an employee.
11. Is the worker paid a fixed salary, an hourly wage, or based on a piece rate basis?
Independent contractors agree to do a job and get paid for the job.
12. Did the worker previously perform the same or similar services for you as an employee?
If the worker previously performed the same or similar services as an employee, then the worker is probably still an employee.
13. Does the worker believe that he or she is an employee?
When both the principal and the worker believe they have and agreement where the worker is an independent contractor, an argument exists to support an independent contractor relationship between the parties.
First, any talk on minimum wage should start with the Living Wage figure of $15 an hour and work down from that. We all know that all of these proposals are inadequate and if a $10 approach is taken it should be immediate with the preface that higher rates are to come. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU PAY YOUR MIDDLE SCHOOL BABYSITTER $10 an hour.....
What we need to point out that it is a Labor Secretary that is pushing Obama's shameful minimum wage rate. Harris is on the way out and is to be followed by Maryland's own Perez......from a state with a minimum wage of $7.25 regardless the protest. Maryland also leads in undocumented worker wage theft and subcontracting categorization of workers as 'independent contractors' when they are not legally allowed. So we have a Labor Secretary shouting out for policy that hurts labor and a Labor Secretary on board with a history of turning a blind eye to labor abuses all across Maryland. That is how you know you have elected Third Way corporate democrats rather than the labor and justice candidates that would be shouting for what is fair and just!
Labor official brings minimum-wage push to Baltimore Listening tour is part of campaign to raise the federal minimum
By Jamie Smith Hopkins, The Baltimore Sun 6:27 p.m. EDT, May 13, 2013
The fight over the federal minimum wage is coming to Baltimore.
The head of the U.S. Department of Labor plans to swing into town Tuesday to talk to low-wage workers about how they make — or don't make — ends meet. Seth D. Harris, the agency's acting secretary, has crisscrossed the country for such events since President Barack Obama proposed in February that the minimum be raised from $7.25 an hour to $9.
"The president during the State of the Union said that it's an outrage that in the richest country on earth that people are working full time and still living in poverty," Harris said in a telephone interview Monday. "So that's the moral core of the proposal. But I've also found [as] I've been traveling around the country and meeting with minimum-wage workers that … as soon as this money goes into their pockets, they're going to turn right around and spend it in businesses in their communities."
Debates about minimum wage usually recycle arguments from previous rounds, including dueling economic studies over the contention that a higher minimum causes job loss.
But this year, there's a new twist. Some advocates point to uncertainty over health-care costs related to the Affordable Care Act, saying the timing is bad.
"Laying on top of that a new wage mandate … would be a mistake for the economy," said Ellen Valentino, Maryland state director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small-business association.
Companies with fewer than 50 employees will not be charged a penalty if they don't provide health-care coverage, and very small businesses could qualify for tax credits to help offset insurance costs. But Valentino said small businesses will still see a hit from rising taxes and premiums.
Minimum-wage legislation now in Congress — proposed by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Rep. George Miller of California, both Democrats — would raise the floor to $10.10 an hour in three stages. Afterward, it would automatically rise along with the cost of living.
That's higher than Obama's proposal but closer to minimum wage's value in 1968, when it amounted to $10.70 an hour in today's dollars, advocates say.
Obama's $9-an-hour proposal would effectively provide a raise for about 15 million people, including 219,000 in Maryland, the Labor Department said. Those workers are largely adults — not teens — and a quarter are supporting children, the agency says.
Harris, the labor secretary, will visit Our Daily Bread in Baltimore to talk to minimum-wage workers helped by that charity and other groups in the city. He's held a dozen such "roundtables" since February and has sent senior officials to nine more.
Harris said he expects to hear experiences in Baltimore similar to those shared by Jessica Nunez, a single mother in Philadelphia. He said Nunez told him she works two minimum-wage jobs and struggles to afford necessities such as food and clothing.
"We've begun reaching out to employers, and I expect to be meeting with them soon," Harris added.
Mary Anne O'Donnell, director of the community services division for Catholic Charities of Baltimore, which runs Our Daily Bread, said housing costs are a major hurdle on minimum wage. Low-wage earners come to the organization seeking help with housing as well as energy bills.
Our Daily Bread also helps people find work, but often the jobs pay minimum wage, O'Donnell said.
"It's really a difficult situation," she said. "I just wish there was a better way to help the individual who is trying to get ahead, trying to work, trying to improve their skills."
Both sides in the minimum-wage debate have studies to bolster their argument about the economic effect — either that increases in the wage prompt job loss or that they don't.
A National Bureau of Economic Research paper in 2006, for instance, reviewed minimum-wage research and concluded that a "sizable majority" found "negative employment effects." Two other studies-of-studies determined that "the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers," according to a Center for Economic and Policy Research paper in February.
David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, which focuses on issues affecting lower-income people, thinks the best evidence from the long body of research points to little or no effect.
The majority of minimum-wage earners work for large companies in the retail, fast-food and hospitality sectors, not for small businesses, he added. Big corporations have the infrastructure to deal with high turnover — small businesses don't.
"When you're paying workers these super-low wages, they're constantly going to be scrambling to find other jobs," he said.
In Baltimore Md our Third Way corporate democratic mayor is trying to send firefighter's pensions to 401K
You had better know that the intent of any politician who sends retirement funds to the market as 401Ks is to allow Wall Street to use them as fodder and you will see no overall gain if not loses!!
401(k) and the Financialization of Retirement
Monday, 15 April 2013 14:39 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | Video
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.
With all the recent discussion and debate about President Obama's proposed reform to Social Security in his new budget--one of the fears of which by some people is any reform begins to open the door to either more cuts to Social Security benefits, or even open the door to privatization of Social Security, something that's been the dream of some people, including President Ronald Reagan and others that came after him, and especially President Bush, the idea that everybody would have a private Social Security account that they would then invest. And as some people have said, that's almost a wet dream of Wall Street. Well, at any rate, there is already financialization of retirement taking place that's not getting much discussion.
And now joining us to talk about that is Teresa Ghilarducci. She's a labor economist and a nationally recognized expert in retirement security. She taught economics at the University of Notre Dame for 25 years, is currently the director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. And her most recent book is When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them.
Thanks very much for joining us, Teressa.
TERESA GHILARDUCCI, DIRECTOR, SCHWARTZ CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS: Oh, you're welcome.
JAY: So while privatization hasn't yet hit Social Security, it has hit much of American seniors' retirement funds. So what exactly has been happening?
GHILARDUCCI: Well, over the past 35 years, the United States has embarked on an experiment. And the experiment I like to call the do-it-yourself retirement system. So that experiment was aided and abetted by employers and by Congress and many presidents that enabled a transformation of people's pensions from what's called a defined benefit or a traditional pension, where your pension was based on your years of service and your salary at the time. The employer made contributions, but of course workers gave up implicitly some wages so those contributions could be made. But when you retired, you knew that you would get a set amount of income for the rest of your life. It was paid in an annuity.
And over time, workers' bargaining power, because a lot of unions had been lost and a lot of new big employers came on the scene, like Walmart, that never had a traditional pension, just had what--the system is called a 401(k) system. That system was built in the 1970s for executives to put on top of their defined benefits system, and it's a way to save pretax money at work into basically a whole suite of mutual funds that are chosen by your employer. So the idea is that you, as a worker, trigger a contribution from your employer into your 401(k), and then your employer chooses a bunch of investments that you can invest in.
And then you're on your own. You decide where to put your money and how much money to put in that retirement plan. If you leave, you can take the money with you, or you can keep it at your company, or you can withdraw it--and a lot of people do. And in many companies, if you have a hardship, you can withdraw the money.
The whole structure of this system has been played out. We've seen how it has happened in the past 35 years. And the whole structure at almost every point has a fatal flaw. And so now older workers are going into retirement with not enough money to maintain their living standards and actually not enough money to live as well, relatively as well as their parents or grandparents. So I am looking at and many other researchers are looking at a real retirement crisis [crosstalk]
JAY: Well, hang on. Before we get into that further, just explain just what's wrong with the 401(k). The basic issue is that it's shifting, basically, a risk, essentially, of the stock market onto individuals who, one, have no experience to make these kinds of decisions. And why should you risk your retirement income?
GHILARDUCCI: So if you're lucky enough to have a 401(k) system--and I'll go back to that part--you are required to decide what Wall Street fund to put your money in and what amounts and, you know, what proportions. So all of a sudden, instead of having your company's pension fund managers manage your money professionally, you, whether or not you're an insurance agent or a professor of humanities or something else, you're required to actually invest your own money. It's as if the country said, okay, for the next 35 years, you have to pull your own teeth or you have to do your own electrical wiring or you have to do your own home building. You are asking people to be an expert in areas where we're not trained.
You know what that means? That means you have the same results as you would if we pulled our own teeth or did our own wiring. We have a lot of botched up portfolios out there, and people are paying very high fees to Wall Street firms for mutual funds they should never have had anyway. So that's one big problem with a 401(k).
JAY: And why should your retirement be linked to speculating on Wall Street anyway? I mean, this is a great boon for Wall Street. It opens up all the fees and all the money for them to take that money and then go speculate with it. But we saw what happened in 2007 and 2008, how great they are at making these kinds of speculative decisions, and then people have lost their retirement.
GHILARDUCCI: Yeah. I mean, you're right. The 401(k) system was fairly popular because people thought they would get double-digit returns forever.
JAY: Yeah. It's the same way American real estate is never going to go down.
GHILARDUCCI: Right. And at the same time they were actually looking at, fondly, their 401(k) balances, they were also getting themselves into debt buying homes that would never go down in value. So the 2008 financial crisis really hurt people in very real ways, but it also woke us up and let us look at this system, this experiment. And I deem it a failure.
JAY: So for workers that still have a defined benefit plan--and a lot of them, there's fights taking place still in various negotiations and even strikes that are taking place, or workplaces that have lost it. I mean, is one route to try to get back a defined benefit plan or defend the one you have?
GHILARDUCCI: Well, certainly, to defend the one you have, it'd be hard to have your employer who's been, you know, used to a 401(k) platform to go back to a defined benefit plan. But it has happened. There were experiments with the West Virginia teachers, with Nebraska state employees, with Indiana employees of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Those are three employers that went to a defined contribution or a 401(k) type system, and they scuttled that to the DB system. So it can happen. Mainly people who have defined benefit plans at work, in big corporations, in public employment, should fight to keep them. And employers, if they take a second look--and many, many have--realize that it's actually cheaper to invest $1 of retirement assets in a defined benefits system than it is in a 401(k) system. You get a better bang for your buck if you put money into a DB system than you do in a 401(k) system.
And the reason for that is simple: 401(k)s are managed by individuals who are not trained to manage money. And so, many mistakes are made on the road to retirement, and it just dribbles out in big chunks, in little chunks, retirement assets, in fees and withdrawals, and you get to the finish line and you get to your retirement day, and you have many more big chances of having really good, adequate retirement in those traditional plans than you do [crosstalk]
JAY: Okay. I just want to just once more, especially for younger viewers that may not have encountered this yet at work, the defined benefit plan means when you get to retirement, you know that a certain percentage of the salary you've earned is going to be your retirement income. And it doesn't matter what happened to the investments; you're going to get that much money. The other plan is you define how much you pay in, but you have no idea what you're going to get out of it.
GHILARDUCCI: Right. I mean, you put money into it, so you have an idea how much you want out of it and kind of estimate you're going to get a certain rate of return. But people don't estimate, don't really appreciate how much the fees are draining their retirement assets. But the average fee takes 20 to 30 percent of a person's retirement assets. They pay--an average household can pay up to $200,000 over their work lives in fees with no commiserate increase in the rate of return.
JAY: So I go back to my earlier question: why should any of this be financialized? In fact, even the defined benefit plans, you wind up with these enormous union-run pension funds. But why even that? Why not people just pay more into Social Security and have a guaranteed payout when they retire?
GHILARDUCCI: Well, some of it's an historical pass, which is that we would have a base of income coming from retirement, from Social Security, which is, you know, our baseline. Most people get most of their money from Social Security when they retire, especially lower-income people. It's a good base. And if you have more dependents or if you have a disability, you're covered more than other people. If you live longer, you get more. There's partial insurance and partial income support.
On top of that, we have always added a tax-favored funded system. So the idea is that if you put $1 in now, that $1 will earn a rate of return, and then you can actually retire with partial contributions and partial earnings. So it's a little cheaper to actually put money into financial assets. Now, if you put it into government bonds, then the income you would get would come from taxpayers paying interest on government bonds. If you buy a General Electric stock, then when you retire it's the shareholders, the consumers of General Electric who will pay you when you retire, so it's basically the same thing. You rely on the productivity and the full employment and the wages of the current generation to pay for the older generation's retirement. You need--it is an intergenerational compact. We just happen to arrange it so that Social Security is pay-as-you-go and the other layer is fully funded.
JAY: But I'm just saying the other layer embroils you in the financialization into Wall Street, into how, like, your life is so linked to the markets.
GHILARDUCCI: But you know what? So is--and we're linked to our markets, but in many arrangements, we are more protected than others. So think about homeowners insurance. I live in an area that was hit by Hurricane Sandy. I got a lot of money from my insurance company to replace my car and some damage to where I live. That money was financialized. It was in insurance markets. That insurance company invested in the private markets. But the deal with me is that if I lost something, they would pay me, and they had to deal with the ups and downs in the market. If I had a defined benefit plan--and part of my pension is in a guaranteed asset--those assets will go up and down, but I don't feel that variation.
So, many of our lives are financialized anyway. If we have private insurance, that's where it is. It's actually how exposed we are to that risk is what's at stake.
JAY: Well, I guess it's partly another discussion. There certainly is--like, in Canada, there's various provinces that have public auto insurance.
JAY: And, in fact, the public auto insurance, when you compare the public to the private auto insurance, the studies I've seen is the public auto insurance is actually more efficient. There's paying out premiums as well or better. But it's a somewhat different discussion we're having. So what would you like to see? What do you think is the way people should be dealing with their retirement savings?
GHILARDUCCI: Well, you know, actually, your comment that there are a lot of ways to arrange our insurance, you know, and people's desire to have a certain amount of money for the rest of their lives is actually quite pertinent, what they do in Canada.
So let me talk about, you know, a better plan, which is that all Americans--you know, and most Americans are not in a 401(k) system or a defined benefit plan. So let's not forget the people listening to this program or people you know who don't have any kind of plan at work to save their money. That's--a big part of the 401(k) system doesn't even cover everything.
JAY: And let me just quickly interject a stat I learned from reading your article, and tell me if I'm remembering it correctly. Is it 75 percent of Americans have less than $30,000 of savings when they hit retirement?
GHILARDUCCI: It's really hard to even remember that number because it's so low. That's exactly right. Most people have next to nothing, and very few people have over $100,000, $200,000. Those are the very rich. So the average turns out to be around, you know, $30,000, $35,000, which will get you a dinner and a movie if you smooth that consumption out for the rest of your retirement life, a dinner and a movie once a month. So it's really nothing.
What I would like to see is that everybody have access at work, because that's the best place to save a little bit of your paycheck every paycheck, have access at work to save money for retirement in a safe and secure way. People are not saving for retirement to play the stock market or to get rich. They want that money guaranteed, the principal guaranteed, and a modest, steady, safe return.
Some of us have such a pension plan. These are often privileged workers have those kind of guaranteed retirement plan. A DB plan is sort of live that. Federal employees, members of Congress have that kind of a plan.
All Americans deserve that option. So I propose that everybody have a chance to save more on top of their Social Security. Social Security really forces you to save 12.4 percent. Half is paid by your employer, half is paid by you. Experts, including myself, have estimated that everybody really needs to save about 7 to 10 percent on top of that. People who are on decent pension plans already do that.
So people need a place to save more money into their retirement, and it needs to be guaranteed, and it needs to be guaranteed by the entity that is best able to smooth out the ups and downs of the stock market over a many-decade process. So you need a big, big financial company or you need the federal government or a state government to say, hey, if the stock market's flat in the 2000s, it'll go up again perhaps in 2010s, and it was way up in the '90s. We can--we're going to survive, you know, for many, many decades [crosstalk]
JAY: Wouldn't the quick fix be to open the federal plan to everybody?
GHILARDUCCI: I think it's a really good plan. That's part of--that's one of the options.
California is not waiting for the federal government to act. California in September passed a law that will lead to the ability of Californians who might work for a small private company or a large private company to be able to save their money in a California government-managed plan, and they would get a guaranteed basic return on their retirement assets. They wouldn't be able to withdraw the assets to buy a new house, to put a kid through college, to bail a kid out of jail, for all the things that, you know, face all of us because we're human beings; that money will be set aside only for retirement. So California and many other states have moved first. But a lot of other states are going to follow California's example and let people just save on top of their Social Security in a state guaranteed account, much like your comment about Canada was much more pertinent than you thought, much like some of the provincial governments of Canada are doing.
JAY: Okay. Well, this is just the beginning of this discussion. We're going to do a lot more work on this with Teresa. So if you have some comments or questions you'd like Teresa to address, she's going to come back again. So just send your comment to contact (at) therealnews (dot) com. And we'll make that the basis of the next time we do this interview.
Thanks very much for joining us, Teresa.
JAY: And thank you for joining us. Don't forget, speaking of guaranteed benefit, we need more guaranteed benefit plan from our viewers. We're in our fundraising campaign this spring. We have a $50,000 matching grant. If you donate a buck, we get another buck. And we need your bucks. And so please join us again on The Real News Network.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CORPORATION FOUND IN HAMPSTEAD, MD YOU MIGHT THINK IT WAS A LOCAL TEMPORARY LABOR AGENCY. IT IS ACTUALLY BASED IN FLORIDA....HOME OF THE WORST OF LABOR LAWS, WAGES, AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. WHAT DO YOU BET THAT THIS CORPORATION IS ROUTING THESE WORKERS FROM FLORIDA TO MARYLAND TO WORK FOR WHAT THEY WOULD UNDER FLORIDA LAW?
WE HAVE SEEN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY JUST AS MANY OTHERS BE COMPLETELY DISMANTLED BY THIS TEMPORARY WORKER SYSTEM. THESE PEOPLE NOT ONLY ARE TREATED BADLY AS FAR AS WORKPLACE EXPLOITATION....THEY ARE FORCED TO LIVE MIGRATORY LIVES AS THEY ARE MOVED FROM STATE TO STATE TO FIND WORK WITH THIS AGENCY. IT IS DISGUSTING!!!!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!
RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!!!!
Why Skilled Labor Solutions, Inc.?
- Over 15 years experience
- Competitive Rates
- Account Executives availabe 24/7
- SLS, Inc. handles all payroll processing
- No workers' comp insurance; we pay!
- No Unemployment Insurance; we pay!
- No project is ever to small
- Skilled workers are ready when you need them
SLS Advantage Experience
SLS has over 15 years experience in the construction labor service industry and has worked with hundreds of local companies. Given this depth of knowledge, we understand today's competitive market place. By staying current to the industry's ever-changing demands, we are able to better serve our clients. That's why SLS offers knowledgeable, reliable trades at affordable rates.
Skilled Labor Solutions works hard at recruiting talented craftsmen so you don't have to. You can always depend on our trades to produce quality work in a timely manner. We work hard to match our workers with your specific needs. In fact, your satisfaction is our greatest priority. We back our craftsmen with the SLS 4 hour guarantee. If within the first 4 hours of the day you are not satisfied with our craftsmen's performance, you may send them back at no charge to you.
Our talented network of craftsmen undergo a rigorous screening process that includes:
- Formal Interview
- Skill Verification
- Background Check
- Drug & Alcohol Screen
- Drivers License Verification
- Previous Employment Check
- I-9 Verification
- Reference Checks
We will also work with your special needs such as projects that require specific clearances.
Lose the hassle of recruiting, interviewing and screening of direct-hire employees. Skilled Labor Solutions takes the time to pre-qualify all of our skilled tradesmen so you can be assured the leg work is done.
When business slows down, companies are faced with tough decisions when it comes to their workforce. No one likes to make calls about who should go and who can stay. Employees know when work slows, and immediately worry about their future. That's why SLS is perfect for expanding your workforce when times are good, with out having to layoff employees when work slows. Employees feel valued and appreciate the stability, therefore increasing productivity and morale. SLS affords your company flexibility to win in today's ever fluctuating climate.
Safety is one of Skilled Labor Solutions top priorities. All trades will receive training to acquire their 10 hour OSHA card.
SLS's labor rates already include unemployment taxes, workers compensation insurance, and benefits for employees. Plus, by utilizing SLS, you save on ever-increasing insurance and unemployment rates.