Part-time jobs increase, but it raising uncomfortable ramifications.

An article in the New York Times discussed the phenomena of part-time work that becomes the sole employment while people wait for a better job. The article was written by Catherine Rampell. The US economy generated 30 months of continuous job growth, but with millions of people looking for work with a greater income, the growth isn’t comforting.

In March, 7.6 million Americans wanted more hours while they were working in part-time jobs, which is about the same as the figure in 2012 and three million more than in 2007 when the recession began. Of course the invisible underemployed workers don’t actually count toward the jobless rate of 7.6% because that figure doesn’t mean much. However, a more inclusive figure, which includes involuntary part-time workers and people who want work, but have stopped looking is 13.8%.

Diane Swonk, chef economist at Meirow Financial in Chicago said, “There’s nothing inherently wrong with people taking part-time jobs if they want them. The problem is that people are accepting part-time pay because they have no other choice.”

This is really the key; people have no other choice so they settle for part-time work with part-time hours and part-time wages. Most hiring since the economy began improving has been in the low-wage employment sectors in retail, home health care, and food preparation. Household incomes have stagnated during the recovery, and fell during the last report. So now people are starting to get concerned about the quality of the new jobs in addition to the pace in which hiring is taking place. Part-time work rose during the recession and the early part of the recovery, and it appears to be continuing now. About 19% of workers say they usually work part-time, and that is defined as fewer than 35 hours per week opposed to 16.9% when the recession began. Most of the gains in part-time work have been by people who reluctantly work fewer hours because of slacking business conditions for their employer or because of an inability to find a full time job.

The article shares some personal stories about people working part-time when they want full-time employment, and how in some cases their bosses are trying to get them more hours. Part-time workers looking for full-time work have fewer hours and less income than desired. They are also less likely to receive benefits and more likely to have unpredictable schedules, which makes childcare and transportation challenging and even finding second part-time jobs. Additionally, part-time workers often make less per hour than their full-time peers.

There is a good chance that strong job growth in food services and retail (which rely on part-time laborers) could skew the composition of full-time verses part-time employees. The article also alleges that changed to health care policy might also play a role in the shifts to dependence on part-time workers. Mostly, the consensus is everyone is confused over specific policies and potential penalties. The article ends by positing that some employ part-time workers because figuring out a retail schedule with full-time workers is too challenging. Honestly, that just feels lazy to me.

Corporations benefit from part-time employees because the employees don’t require benefits. Part-time workers have also traditionally been more difficult to organize because they have fewer strong ties to the company. Reliance on part-time laborers will change the composition of the US work force. With all of this, the need for universal health care and a workers’ bill of rights becomes more apparent. It will be interesting and worth further investigation as to why the part-time work force has been rapidly increasing. 

Fashion Police writers are on strike

Once, I lived with a woman who loved pop culture. I too love to read Perez Hilton’s site because often it is a hot mess, and that just makes everyone feel a little better. However, M was a pretty big fan of entertainment TV, which is the only reason I find Joan Rivers relevant at all. Rivers is famous for a variety of things from The Tonight Show to Fashion Police. I’ve never watched the latter because I don’t care. However, Kelly Osbourne, Giuliana Rancic, George Kotsiopoulos, and Melissa Rivers are all affiliated with the show, and the show is in the news.

According to Sarah Jaffe’s piece at In These Times, the writers for the E! Network show claim their bosses ignore California wage-and-hour laws have underpaid them by $1.5 million. The writers say their strike will continue until Fashion Police signs a Writers Guild of America contract, which would provide them with union protections and industry-standard wages and benefits. So working for TV sucks, I guess many people think that working on TV is awesome, but these are people I’ve never understood. In reality, writers, particularly, work long hours and are often pressured not to share information about their working conditions with the added pressure of having to be funny and talented all the time.

Like many TV writers and producers, Fashion Police writers can work 16-hour days, however according to the complaint they filed with California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement they aren’t paid overtime and often these hours go uncompensated. The writers are employed by both E! and Rivers’ production company (Rugby Productions). The Writers Guild of America (WGA) West President Chris Keyser released a statement, “Throughout our history, prominent members of the guild have stood up for their fellow writers to ensure they are treated fairly and compensated properly…Unfortunately, this has not been the case with Ms. Rivers.”

The WGA is backing the strikers and notified all its members that under its Working Rule 8, everyone is prohibited from writing for the show while the strike is underway. The new programming (reality TV and “nonfiction” TV) has meant a shift in the working conditions for the writers and producers. These shows appeal to execs because they are cheap and often non-union. Scripted dramas are usually scripted and well compensated. Writers and producers on these “nonfiction” programs call them “white-collar sweatshops.” However, getting on a high rated show is a step in moving up the ladder even if the conditions are shitty.

Because of this, some non-WGA writers might be tempted to replace the strikers, but striker Eliza Skinner posted on her blog:

“If you work the jobs when we’re on strike the company has no reason to fix the situation. If you are good enough to work the job now, you’ll be good enough in a month. By that time, the pay rate for the exact same job could be 6 times as much. If you don’t wait, it might never get there. In a competitive industry it can be hard to convince workers to stand together, and in relatively high-end positions that can seem like unattainable dream jobs, it can be difficult to convince workers to make demands of their employers. Reporting for AlterNet in 2011, I spoke to a freelance nonfiction TV producer who called her job “a labor of love” and explained that such love of the job can convince writers and producers to pus in extra hours—but those extra hours quickly become the norm.”

Of course in an economic climate where workers are told they should be grateful to have any employment, jobs in the entertainment industry can appear to be a luxury, but these shows are very profitable. The strike is an escalation in the tactics the guild is pushing to organize workers in this sector, as workers aim to improve their conditions. Jaffe asserts their organizing successes can be a lesson for those who aim to organized high-status, high-stress, high turnover white-collar jobs. Fingers crossed, that the strikers win their dispute, and improve their working conditions. . Eliza Skinner writes, “We’re fighting not just for our jobs, but for future writers too. That is you, future writer.”

So apparently there were two states passing laws to punish poor people last week

Because you know all these reps are like “Nailed it.”

Think Progress had this first piece on Thursday by Nicole Flatow.  Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill last week to drug-test recipients of both welfare and unemployment. This makes Kansas the first state to implement the ALEC and Big Parma backed legislation because they will not be out done by other idiotic states. The law passed with a Democrat added provision to drug test legislators, but the provision is pretty weak. But tip of my hat to that Dem, who is at least trying.

The Wichita Eagle stated:

“The drug testing bill lets the Department for Children and Families require urine tests of any welfare recipient suspected of using illegal drugs. That could be triggered by a person’s demeanor, missed appointment or police records.

“Opponents of the bill said that may leave the decision open to people’s biases. But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote […]

“Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

“The testing program for unemployment recipients is similar, although Department of Labor officials will require employers who usually drug test job applicants to submit a list of people who applied and didn’t get a job because they failed a pre-employment drug screen […]

“The state estimates it will need to hire four more employees to deal with drug testing and treatment management under the bill. The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits.”

In case you’re keeping score: 8 states have laws that test public benefit recipients or applicants, and 29 have introduced legislation in the last year.  A federal law passed last year authorized drug tests for unemployment beneficiaries. The bills keep spreading even through several courts have ruled to block state drug-testing laws as being potentially unconstitutional and all early indications show these laws are costing more money than just given the 2% of welfare recipients who use drugs benefits. The Florida law has been blocked by a federal appeals court back in February because, “The simple fact of seeking public assistance does not deprive a TANF applicant of the same constitutional protections from unreasonable searches that all other citizens enjoy.” The court also noted there is “nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a ‘concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use or that should drug use occur.”

The Kansas law doesn’t mandate testing like the Florida law, but instead it requires “reasonable suspicion” to perform drug testing of already enrolled beneficiaries. Those who fail the first test can have their results retested at their own expense, and will be reimbursed by the state if the subsequent test is negative. If they test positive, they have to complete drug treatment and job skills programs before they are tested again and reconsidered.

Gov. Brownback, while signing the bill, called drug addiction a “scourge on Kansas,” but the law is vague on how to address addiction. Drug abuse programs are mandated for those who test positive, but there is nothing about an assessment in the law. Instead, it results in a poor person without income for six weeks while attending the program.

In a second story from last week it is North Carolina’s turn to shine. PolicyShop.net had a post by Ilana Novick last week on North Carolina’s legislature passing a background checks for social services bill. Novick begins by correctly asserting that you don’t need a background check to buy a gun in North Carolina, but now they are trying to require one for social services. There is so much wrong with the world. The bill, House Bill 392, enjoyed bipartisan support on a 106-6 vote. Wrap your mind around that.

The North Carolina House Health and Human Services Committee voted to make background checks mandatory in all of North Carolina’s Department of Health and Social Services (DSS) offices for anyone applying for benefits and trying to renew them. The law also requires that DSS tell local law enforcement agencies if an individual is a fugitive or has an outstanding warrant.

Of course, the bill provides no funding for performing the background checks. A lobbyist representing NC’s DSS noted at the hearing that the bill: “Right now, the county (DSS offices) are just strapped. We can’t afford another underfunded mandate.” It should cost the state's computers $144,841 to perform the background checks. The costs to local governments are unclear at this time, which is obviously why it passed.

North Carolina is the first state to pass a law requiring background checks, but according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, seven states have passed legislation for drug testing and 29 others have proposed it. I’ve ranted about how and why that is ineffective and a waste of money. But these are all backdoor attempts to end welfare and the social safety net.

Of course,  people looking for benefits almost always have children. So we’re targeting a vulnerable population.

Representative Paul Luebcke noted that the bill assumes “poor people were automatically suspect while well-off people were considered above reproach.” Yes, because poor people are all criminals and burdens on the system. Oh feel my rage. Luebcke, in an attempt to be my favorite person, submitted an amendment requesting that the state change the way job development grants are awarded making CFOs and CEOs subject to background checks. It was symbolic and not voted one, but the point stands.

Fingers-crossed this doesn’t take off. I don’t have the self-control for it. I should make a bingo game: this week in stupid welfare policy changes that do absolutely nothing but persecute the poor and cost money no one has. All of this is ridiculous and ineffective. I wish everyone would leave welfare to people who know what it is and how it works. Also, someone for the love of all things hold vote these idiots out of office. That is all.

Alright, alright, Pope Francis reaffirms the Vatican’s crackdown on the American sisters

*Relief* That was close you guys with Pope Francis treating women like people, and we were all concerned. But don’t you worry; Francis is backing the short-sighted reactionary policies around social movements the Catholic Church has traditionally backed. Naturally, those liberal Catholics who were throwing praise Francis’ way will be replacing it with shade.

Tom Kington for the Los Angeles Times wrote about Francis’ reaffirming the doctrinal evaluation and criticism of US nuns made by Pope Benedict and the Holy See last year. The assessment accused the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an organization that represents most female orders (80%) in the US, of promoting radical feminist agendas and themes (yes, please) and ignoring the Vatican’s stance on same-sex marriage and abortion.

Originally, the Vatican sent an archbishop to rewrite the Leadership Conference of Women Religious statutes and set up reeducation programs to get the nuns back in line, claiming the US orders are challenging the church’s teachings on women’s ordination and ministry to gays. This was denounced by Pat Farrell, the head of the organization, as an attempt to create “pain and scandal.” Protests and vigils were held outside churches, and a petition attacking the Vatican’s decision with 50,000 signatures.

On Monday, when Francis was reaffirming, officials from the conference met with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller (head of the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle, the Vatican’s envoy to the nuns.

Francis “reaffirmed the findings of the assessment ant the program of reform” suggested for the nuns. A short statement after the meeting, the conference said “the conversation was open and frank. We pray that these conversations may bear fruit for the good of the church.” Sartain, assisted by two US bishops, is still in talks with the conference and hasn’t imposed any changes.

Kenneth Briggs, an author of a book on the Vatican’s clash with the US nun, stated that Francis backing the Holy See is a “major blow” to any dialogue: “It seems like the Vatican has put a more appealing salesman in charge of the same old product.”

Francis has been wooing the faithful because of his informal style, off-the-cuff homilies and his attempts to reach out to the poor. But this isn’t going to last if he is circling the wagons on conservative views on social issues. Father James Martin, a US Jesuit priest who led a Twitter drive last year to defend the nuns says this isn’t a good sign: “Given the long history of the LCWR investigation, it’s not surprising that Pope Francis is asking the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] to continue its work. It would have been odd for him to halt things at this point, so early in his job. But given that he himself is a member of a religious order, I would imagine that the sisters will get a sympathetic hearing from him.”

Fr. Martin is being kind here. I don’t think for a second that the sisters are going to get sympathetic ear. I think we’re going to see how deep the misogyny runs in the Catholic Church. We’re all members of religious orders here, but yours don’t count because you’re women. We’ll see how this plays, but I’m not hopeful. Full disclosure, I’m personally invested because of my Aunt who at one point was cited by name in the Vatican’s investigation.

Ohio’s GOP wants to disenfranchise Ohio’s college students

I know you’re all shocked. So Ohio has been working on disenfranchising more and more people every year. We’ll call it the “GOP Rocks the Vote.” True the Vote spent a lot of time last year trying to intimidate hundreds of students because students tend to vote democrat. Now the Republican legislators are going to use the budget bill to intimidate universities to keep students away from the polls.

According to Plunderbund, the substitute budget bill (Sub. H. B. No. 59) introduced by house republicans contains changes to Ohio law that makes it difficult for Ohio’s students who live on campus to prove they are residents of the state.

In Ohio, students living on campus can obtain a letter from the school as proof of residency. These letters are important for students who are trying to participate in the political process. Moments like this, I really wonder who added this to the bill, and how they pitched it: “Hey, guys, how do we disenfranchise young people?”

An Ohio voting guide on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website confirms students can use their college address to register to vote and the letters are acceptable proof of residency. Language in the bill creates a disincentive for schools issuing these letters, by requiring schools to change the residency status of a student who is issued one of the letters. Schools would be forced to lower tuition rates for any student who pays out of state tuition but wants to vote in Ohio.

The provision reads:

“(E) The rules of the chancellor for determining student residency shall grant residency status to a student to whom a state institution of higher education issues a letter utility bill for use as proof that the student is a qualified elector in this state.

“Nothing in division (E) of this section shall be used to grant residency to a student for any purpose other than for state subsidy and tuition surcharge purposes.”

For those of you who don’t know, tuition is how schools pay their bills. I think tuition should be lowered across the board. However, schools will stop or in the very least decrease issuing letters of residency to students to live on campus, but pay out of state tuition. The intended purpose: prevent students from voting.

The House plans to vote on this bill on Thursday. Well played Ohio. Keep finding ways to cut voters, and I’ll cross my fingers that this comes back to bit all of you in the ass. It should be noted that students will probably see this as a good thing, but only after they organize to ensure in state tuition and the ability to vote. [Aside, on Wednesday, the women come to Columbus to speak out against the defunding of the Planned Parenthood.]

There is so much wrong with this: impromptu feminist thought lesson for everyone

A New Hampshire Representative substituted the word vagina for women because you know women are just female sexual organs. This is not actually true. Take a minute, kiss your kids, do what you need to, to get to a place where we can continue.

I read about this on TheFrisky, Jezebel, HuffPo, and HyperVocal, which is where I pulled the info from Slade Sohmer’s article. So because you think of vaginas when you think of “stand your ground” wait…this makes no fucking sense. Anyway, New Hampshire has a bill up to repeal “stand your ground” or as I call it “open season on people of color by idiot racists.” I guess the festivities kicked off with an 11-year-old brandishing an AR-15 outside the State house over the weekend asking adults to “Come and take it.” Kids, aren’t they cute? Take back the kiss you gave them.

Now, a Representative has used the word vagina as a synonym for women in an official email to the full House email list. The email was sent by Rep. Peter Hansen, an Amherst Republican in his second term (and fingers-crossed his last) was written on April 1^st about the debate over “stand your ground” and sent to the full House email list. Hansen in a moment of unrivaled eloquence states, “What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina’s of course. While the tales relate the actions of solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims.”

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt provided several examples of situations where he hadn’t needed “stand your ground” to protect himself. Hansen claimed his email was meant to demonstrate that women and children could have different situations (because women who shoot batters totally are protected under “stand your ground” except no). Hansen then said he was using the word “vagina” to prove a point. I’m pretty sure that point is to demonstrate he’s an idiot.

Hansen is trying to tread water shortly after the email was sent out:

“Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self  appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche.”

This is the equivalent of “hush, a man is talking”. Guys, guys, I’m being snarky, but he’s so smart after all he says so. Gee, I wonder why rendering half the population as nothing more than their sex organs could be construed as offensive? Wait, nope. Pretty sure everyone gets that. I didn’t know of course that anyone who took offense to being called a vag is sexist though. I mean men/boys use terms traditionally used for women as derogatory all the time (see women, girls, bitch, ladies, etc), and while, yes this is sexist language, I wonder if Hansen is trying to subvert that culture of masculinity? No, I’m sure he isn’t. I’ve never been called a vagina, but I have been called a cunt before. And being rendered equivalent to my reproductive capacity is pretty damn offensive. Also, calling me one to my face will get you verbally torn up and possibly punched in the face.

Later he really apologized:

“Can there be any doubt my comment is being misinterpreted and taken completely out of context? It was not, and is not, my intention to demean women at any time. It is apparent that the intent of my remarks has been misinterpreted, the true goal of the message lost and for that I apologize to those who took offense.”

See his apology is for someone taking offense, which is the non-apology apology. My favorite thing is taken out of context by being taken at face value. Idiot. If this man can serve in a state House, than I can, which should make everyone nervous.

Ok, so I’m not going to describe in explicit detail why women are people and calling all women vaginas as a synonym is a way to remove women from the conversation. I think I’ve written about that here before. But I am about to blow your mind: some women identify as women and don’t have vaginas. *drops mic* What Rep. Asshat  Hansen does is reduce women and men to biology when gender is a social construct.

More so, gender is performance (Judith Butler). We perform our gender arguably as society tells us to, and I have a lengthy term paper on the ways society reinforces race, class, and gender though structures, stereotypes, and policies (Ivy Ken). I present my gender as a CIS woman. Butler argues that doing gender is a social relationship. We do not perform gender for ourselves (though I think this conversation can happen), but mostly our gender presentation is for others. This is Foucault, right? Without getting too into Biopower, race and class (a lot of the time) are policed by society and the government, while gender is more often self-policed by ourselves and those close to us. I think the argument can also be made in reverse in specific situations like when a government or publicly funded school enforces a dress code on women only. Or when a person of color is told by family/friends they are acting too white essentially not conforming to the socially acceptable standards, but those conversations need to happen, but this is not where we are having them. So it is stop-and-frisk of a black man compared to a father telling his son he can’t play with a doll or wear a dress. Like I said, it is boiled down to its simplest form right here.

At the end of the day, we have a state Rep being an idiot and a sexist reducing the population to their biologically assigned sex while conflating sex with gender and singling out half the population. Yeah, people should be pissed. You see by equating women with their sex; Hansen is also equating men with their sex trapping everyone in a gender binary.

In conclusion: repeal “stand your ground” and stop using gender and sex as interchangeable. Finally, don’t reduce women or anyone else to body parts because it makes you look foolish.