Category Archives: legislative

Commander-in-Chief or CEO?

From Truman to Trump, a handful of U.S. presidents have made their way to the Oval Office via the business sector.

If a recent Korn Ferry Institute survey offers any clues, it might be a while before we see another commander-in-chief who’s taken that route.

In a poll of 1,432 corporate executives, an overwhelming majority of respondents showed no signs of aspiring to the highest political office in the land. Given the choice, 85 percent of executives said they would rather be CEO of their own organization than lead the country, according to Korn Ferry.

While recognizing the similar requirements for both roles—the ability to drive growth, manage crises, think strategically and manage finances, for example—most business leaders allow that the president has even more hats to wear.

Indeed, 81 percent of the executives polled said they think the U.S. president has a more complex job than they do.

“In a way, you could consider the U.S. president [to be] the national CEO,” says Rick Lash, senior partner at Korn Ferry Hay Group, in a press release summarizing the findings. “While serving as a corporate CEO is generally considered a very challenging role, executives acknowledge the U.S. president faces hurdles that are much higher than those faced by a leader in corporate America.”

In addition to complexity, you can put compensation on the list of reasons why your CEO isn’t likely interested in leading the free world.

Seventy-one percent of executives, for example, reported feeling that the U.S. president—at $400,000 annually, as determined by Congress—is underpaid. Nearly half (48 percent) said the president should receive at least $10.4 million per year; the current average compensation for a CEO at an S&P 500 company. And exactly 0 percent cited salary/compensation as the top reason someone would want the job of U.S. president. But money, or a lack thereof, isn’t the only thing deterring executives from someday pursuing a presidential run.

The position of U.S. president “comes with extra scrutiny as well,” according to Korn Ferry.

Donald Trump, for example, “has been president for less than a week and he’s been questioned about his every action, from the serious (the words he used during his inaugural speech and his choice of cabinet members) to the silly (whether the dance with his wife, Melania, at an inaugural ball was ‘awkward’),” notes the aforementioned release.

“A corporate CEO may be questioned on his or her firm’s stock price and business strategy, but usually isn’t scrutinized for dancing ability.”

High Anxiety for Plan Sponsors

It’s still unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will take aim at the Department of Labor’s new fiduciary rules, which are slated to go into effect on April 10.  As Joseph Urwitz, a partner in McDermott Will & Emery’s Boston office, told us late last month: “While it’s not possible to predict the future, the new Congress and president may overhaul, eliminate or at the very least delay implementation of the fiduciary rule. Time will tell whether or not any of these moves will come to pass.”

thinkstockphotos-468426388But what we do know is that litigation continues to be very much on the minds of plan sponsors.

This fact received further support earlier this week, when Cerulli Associates, a global research and consulting firm, released the findings of a study—titled “The Cerulli Report: U.S. Retirement Markets 2016”—that found more than half (57 percent) of more than 800 401(k) plan sponsors questioned are concerned about potential litigation.

While much of the litigation has targeted large plans with deeper pockets, the research found that smaller plan sponsors are also paying attention to today’s litigious environment.  Nearly one-quarter of small plan sponsors—those less than $100 million in 401(k) assets—describe themselves as “very concerned” about potential litigation.

As most of you know (and the Cerulli report points out), fee-related lawsuits, in particular, have been something of a theme in 2016, putting added pressure on plan sponsors to find ways to reduce fees. “Plan-sponsor-survey results show that the top two reasons for which 401(k) plan sponsors choose to offer passive (indexed) options on the plan menu are because of ‘an advisor or consultant recommendation’ or because they ‘believe cost is the most important factor,’ ” according to the Cerulli press release. But there is also no denying that lowering the risk of litigation factors into the decision making as well.

The Cerulli report suggests that the rash of litigation that has occurred in recent times is stifling innovation. Jessica Sclafani, associate director at Cerulli, notes that “plan sponsors feel they have little to gain by appearing ‘different’ from their peers due to the risk of being sued. This mindset can make plan sponsors reluctant to adopt new products … .”

The Zenefits Saga Continues

It appears Zenefits woes are continuing—and if the predictions of one consultant are correct, they aren’t likely to end anytime soon.

Yesterday, Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler ordered Zenefits to “cease free distribution of its employee benefits software, noting the tactic violates Washington state insurance law against inducements,” his office’s statement reads.zenefitslogo

Washington is said to be the first state to take action against the company for violating inducement laws. Under an agreement with Kreidler, Zenefits can challenge the order within 90 days.

The state took issue with the fact that Zenefits required clients to designate it as its broker of record and then collected insurance commissions from the products it sold in order for them to access its free software.

“The inducement law in Washington is clear,” Kreidler said. “Everyone has to play by the same rules.”

Following the announcement, Zenefits’ General Counsel Josh Stein posted the following on the company’s website

“Today, Zenefits has reached a compromise agreement with the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) on how Zenefits will price its services in Washington State.  Beginning January 1, at the order of OIC, Zenefits may no longer provide free software services in Washington. As a result, Zenefits will charge all Washington state customers $5 per employee per month for our core HR product.”

Stein went on to say …

“The Washington viewpoint is a decidedly minority view. Since its founding, Zenefits has had conversations with regulators about our business model, which includes some free HR apps. Many states have looked into the issue and concluded that free software from Zenefits is not a problem; in fact, it’s in the interest of consumers. Only one state other than Washington has disagreed.  Utah’s department of insurance tried to force Zenefits to raise prices for consumers, and Utah’s state legislature and governor quickly took action, passing a bill to clarify that its rebating statute should not be interpreted to prohibit innovative new business models that deliver value to consumers.”

Earlier today, I spoke with Rhonda Marcucci, partner and consultant in Gruppo Marcucci, a Chicago-based HR and benefits technology consulting firm.

Zenefits has created its own regulatory scrutiny reputation for the rest of its life, Marcucci told me. In this case, she said, “I don’t think it is driven so much by the brokers but by the insurance departments who are extremely angry about the licensing piece—so that now invites more scrutiny in other places. Brokers may have brought it to [the attention of insurance regulators], but the way I look at this, Zenefits is a regulatory penalty box—and they will be, I think, forever.”

Marcucci noted that every state, except for California, has some kind of no rebating or inducement laws for transactions. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that every employer is following the law.

At the end of day, she said, states typically base their decision on enforcing these laws by “who screams the loudest.”

As far as Zenefits is concerned, Marcucci said, it’s realistic to expect that other states might follow Washington’s lead, especially those states with difficult regulatory insurance environments such as New York.

The Gig Economy: Pros and Cons

More than one in 10 working Americans have joined the so-called gig economy, working as freelancers or independent contractors, according to a survey of 1,008 people from ReportLinker. A third of respondents said they would consider exiting the traditional workplace to work in the gig economy, while nearly half said they would be willing to consider doing so within the next three years.

Why would so many consider giving up the security and benefits of a full-time job for the uncertainties of gig work? Twenty eight percent of survey respondents cited “being your own boss,” while the ability to work flexible hours came in second. Nearly 40 percent of job seekers say they’d consider becoming an independent contractor, as would 59 percent of part-time workers and 33 percent of students, according to the survey.

The lack of benefits is a drawback for those working in the gig economy, however, with one in four of the respondents who work as freelancers citing the lack of retirement benefits as a downside. Indeed, the lack of traditional job benefits such as sick-leave pay and unemployment benefits has led the United Kingdom to appoint a team of four experts to review the impact of “disruptive” businesses such as Uber and Deliveroo on that nation’s workforce, reports the BBC. The panelists include Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Arts.

“One of the key issues for the review is ensuring that our system of employment rules are fit for the fast-changing world of work,” Taylor writes in a piece for the Guardian newspaper.

“As well as making specific recommendations, I hope the review will promote a national conversation and explore how we can all contribute to work that provides opportunity, fairness and dignity,” he told the BBC.

The lack of benefits typical in most gig economy jobs has resonated Stateside as well, of course, with a number of gig workers filing suit alleging that they’re actually employees, not independent contractors, and are thus eligible for benefits such as unemployment compensation. In response, companies that employ freelancers are pushing for bills that promote “portable” benefits that workers would be able to take from job to job. Online home-cleaning company Handy, for example, is circulating a draft bill in the New York State legislature that would establish guidelines for portable benefits for workers in that state’s gig-economy companies, reports Reuters. The bill would classify workers at companies choosing to participate in the program as independent contractors rather than employees under state law, as long as the companies’ dealings with their workers “meet certain criteria.”

Not all are pleased with the bill. Larry Engelstein, executive vice president of 32BJ Service Employees International Union, criticized it as offering workers too little.

“The amount of money that’s supposed to be put into these portable benefit funds seems so meager,” Engelstein told Reuters. “The actual benefit a worker is getting hardly warrants what the worker is giving up.”

The ‘Ban the Box’ Paradox

HRE columnist Peter Cappelli recently penned a piece suggesting that “ban the box” legislation, while certainly well-intentioned, may not be the best approach to helping ex-felons transition back into the workforce.

Such laws, which prohibit employers from making questions about criminal convictions part of the hiring process, have been adopted in 24 states and more than 100 cities and counties in the U.S.

The good news is that “more ex-felons seem to have gotten jobs,” says Cappelli, a professor of management and director of the Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, the overall hiring of young black and Hispanic men has declined, he adds.

“In other words, we swapped one form of discrimination for another,” says Cappelli. “It wasn’t supposed to work that way. The problem is people don’t behave the way the legislation anticipated. We don’t wait until the law allows us to find out about criminal records. We start guessing.”

Researchers Jennifer Doleac, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Virginia, and Benjamin Hansen, an associate professor of economics at the University of Oregon, seem to share that view.

In their recent study (which Cappelli does reference in his column), the pair of professors tested the net effects of ban-the-box policies on employment outcomes for various demographic groups, using data from the Current Population survey.

The authors found that, among men between the ages of 25 and 34 who don’t hold a college degree, BTB policies decrease the probability of being employed by 4.5 percent for black men, and by 3.5 percent for Hispanic men.

In the same age group, black men with a college degree and white women of all educational levels benefit from this policy, according to the study. This finding suggests that, when criminal history information is unavailable, “employers pursue candidates who are less likely to have been recently incarcerated based on their remaining observable characteristics,” the authors write.

The goal of BTB laws “is to improve employment outcomes for ex-offenders and thereby reduce racial disparities in employment.”

The legislation, however, “could do more harm than good,” they continue, noting that firms that don’t want to hire ex-offenders might statistically discriminate based on race and gender in order to avoid interviewing applicants who are more likely to have been recently incarcerated.

“Of particular concern, employers might avoid interviewing young, low-skilled, black and Hispanic men when [ban-the-box legislation] is in effect,” note Doleac and Hansen. “This could worsen employment outcomes for those already-disadvantaged groups, without meaningfully improving outcomes for ex-offenders.”

In a recent UVA Today article, Doleac offers a “two-fold policy plan” to help combat discrimination against those for whom “ban the box” laws were designed, “without unintentionally hurting minority men without criminal records.”

For example, “individuals with criminal records may have histories of violent or dishonest behavior, and on average might struggle with greater emotional trauma and have worse interpersonal skills,” she says.

Providing opportunities for such applicants to demonstrate that they don’t have these problems—perhaps by having a local job-training program vouch for them—could potentially “help them overcome automatic assumptions about their temperament and suitability.”

Another “broad category of policies” that might improve upon current legislation includes education and rehabilitation programs that “would actually improve the underlying job readiness of this population,” says Doleac, who is currently working on a new technology-based project aimed at improving re-entry outcomes for individuals leaving prison.

“The reason that employers discriminate against people with [criminal] records is that, on average, that group is less job-ready than people without records.”

 

Supporters of E-Cigs Fight Back

There’s some real pushback under way to what I was thinking had become a generally agreed-upon vice worth eradicating from our streets, public arenas and workplaces: e-cigarette vaping.

470456691--vapingMy eyebrows were raised on Friday when I came across this release from the National Center for Public Policy Research announcing an amicus brief that had just been filed by the NCPPR and TechFreedom in support of an earlier challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s war on vaping.

Specifically, the initial challenge that got a major boost on Friday was filed by Nicopure Labs, a manufacturer of e-cigarette liquid, against the FDA’s Deeming Rule, which was finalized in May. That rule would force e-cigarette manufacturers to undergo an expensive and time-consuming premarket tobacco-application process unless their products were on the market prior to the predicate date of Feb. 15, 2007. As the NCPPR release puts it:

“The high cost of the application process means most e-cig businesses will be forced to shut down, eliminating choices of dramatically safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes, which will leave smokers with fewer options to compete against the most harmful form of nicotine consumption, [again,] combustible tobacco.”

It also states that:

“The FDA’s Deeming Rule fails to consider the scientific evidence readily available to the agency regarding the safety and the public health benefits of e-cigarettes.”

Is it just me or is this the first time you’ve read anything about the “public health benefits of e-cigarettes”?

I love how this guy, Tom Remington, on his blog post, compares  choosing between e-cigs and tobacco to choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Mind you, I’m not 100-percent sure what position he’s taking here (something tells me he’s anti e-cigs … and don’t ask me to even hazard a guess as to who he plans to vote for), but his quote is pretty fun:

“Having a discussion about whether or not e-cigarettes are more healthy than real tobacco-product cigarettes is akin to deciding which crook, Hillary or Donald, should get your vote. Would you rather die from e-cigarettes or from tobacco? Would you rather get screwed and further forced into slavery by Hillary or Donald?”

For a much more complete and sobering look at why clamping down on the e-cigarette business isn’t necessarily a good thing for health but IS a big victory for Big Tobacco, read this opinion piece on the Washington Post site by Jonathan Adler. Here’s just one compelling thought to come away with, as Adler writes it:

“With the new FDA rule, Big Tobacco is getting just what it wanted. … [A]s a consequence of the FDA rule, the e-cig market will shrink, and Big Tobacco will be in a better position to dominate what’s left. A vibrant competitive market will be replaced with a cartel, much like the one we see in the cigarette market.”

So what does all this have to do with HR? Probably not as much as other topics we’ve raised here, but I do know many of you are grappling with your smoking policies, and many of you have opted to lump vaping in with the rest of your organization’s prohibited activities.

I guess this might just give you something more to think about as you go about drafting or enforcing such a policy … like who’s hands you might be playing into(?) Or where the real truth lies(?) If, indeed, these things are so much healthier than cigarettes, for all concerned, and can help move the quitting process along, are you sure you want to deny your employees any and all access(?)

Maybe just put all this in your pipe and smoke it(?) (Sorry.)

A Groundbreaking New Pay Equity Law

Beginning July 1, 2018, employers in Massachusetts will be prohibited from asking job candidates about their salary history before offering them a job or asking candidates’ former employers about their pay. The new law, the Pay Equity Act, is designed to reduce the pay disparities between men and women in the workplace.

Although other states (including California and Maryland) have also enacted recent legislation designed to reduce pay inequity, Massachusetts is the first state to ban employers from asking about candidates’ salary history. The law, signed earlier this week by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, not only had bipartisan support in the state legislature but also from business groups such as the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.

Nationally, women still earn only 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Because companies tend to use candidates’ pay history as a guideline in making offers, these inequities can follow candidates throughout their lifetimes, pay-equity advocates say.

The Massachusetts law, which amends and expands upon the state’s pre-existing pay equity law, also makes it illegal for employers to ban employees from discussing their pay with others and will require equal pay employees whose work is “of comparable character or work in comparable operations.” The law also bars employers from reducing the pay of any employee in order to come into compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The law also increases the penalties for violations, according to an analysis by law firm Holland & Knight:

The law expands the remedies available to plaintiffs by extending the statute of limitations from one year to three years, and creating a continuing violation provision under which a new violation of the law occurs each time an employee is paid an unequal amount. This provision may permit employees to recover years of back pay discrepancies as well as liquidated damages. Fines are increased from $100 to $1,000 per violation. There is no requirement that an employee file first with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Lawsuits may be filed directly in court.

Notably, however, the law features a safe harbor provision for employers that have been accused of pay discrimination, writes attorney Victoria Fuller of White and Williams:

Employers may avoid liability for pay discrimination under the Act if they can show within the last three years and before the commencement of the action, they have completed a good-faith self-evaluation of their pay practices and can demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made towards eliminating compensation differentials based on gender for comparable work in accordance with the evaluation.

GOP Platform: An HR Cheat Sheet

ThinkstockPhotos-504283950The Republican Party platform approved on Monday hasn’t exactly drawn much attention, what with all the other interesting things happening at the GOP convention in Cleveland. But a look at HR-related provisions in the document gives us a window into how the party is evolving.

Some provisions are largely the same as in the party’s 2012 document. Both platforms, for example, call for portability in health plans and pensions.

But others have changed. Some reflect changing economic conditions. Others reflect changing politics — in particular, the rise of nominee Donald Trump, whose positions don’t always align with the party’s traditional views.

Here’s a quick rundown of policy positions of interest to HR leaders.

International trade: The 2016 platform repeats a 2012 pledge to pursue “a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets.”

“We need better negotiated trade agreements that put America first. When trade agreements have been carefully negotiated with friendly democracies, they have resulted in millions of new jobs here at home supported by our exports. “

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Reflecting nominee Donald Trump’s opposition, however, the platform does not explicitly mention the proposed trade deal, which the party supported in 2012. It only hints at a go-slow approach.

“[The] American people demand transparency, full disclosure, protection of our national sovereignty, and tough negotiation on the part of those who are supposed to advance the interests of U.S. workers. Significant trade agreements should not be rushed or undertaken in a Lame Duck Congress. “

Workforce development:  With unemployment rates down from four years ago, the 2016 platform drops a proposal backed by 2012 nominee Mitt Romney to replace dozens of retraining programs with state block grants. It does keep language suggesting a greater role for private worker training, however.

“We need new systems of learning to compete with traditional four-year schools: Technical institutions, online universities, life-long learning, and work-based learning in the private sector … a four-year degree from a brick-and-mortar institution is not the only path toward a prosperous and fulfilling career. “

Regulatory activism: The 2016 platform adds language criticizing the Obama administration’s activist approach to labor issues on the regulatory front.

“They are wielding provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act from the 1930s, designed to fit a manufacturing workplace, to deny flexibility to both employers and employees.”

Targeting NLRB: In particular, the 2016 platform steps up criticism of the National Labor Relations Board. Among policies targeted is the board’s support  of project labor agreements, which guarantee union wages. The platform also calls for repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which has a similar effect on federal projects.

“Their patronizing and controlling approach leaves workers in a form of peonage to the NLRB. We intend to restore fairness and common sense to that agency. “

Labor unions: This year’s platform reiterates language from 2012 that supports laws allowing workers to opt out of union membership or dues requirements, even if they are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement.

“We support the right of states to enact Right-to-Work laws and call for a national law to protect the economic liberty of the modern workforce.”

Minimum wage: Reflecting new potency of the issue, the 2016 platform add language — albeit briefly — opposing any change in the federal minimum wage.

“Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level.”

Don’t Get Blindsided by Family-Leave Laws

Ever wonder what a typical case of family-responsibility discrimination involving elder care might look like? Consider this 538047854 -- elder carescenario laid out in a piece by Tom Spiggle that posted on the Huffington Post in June:

“You have an elderly parent who suffers from Alzheimer’s. He requires continuous care. You have worked at the same job for five years with a strong, positive work history. To better care for your father, you move him out of assisted living into your house. A paid caregiver takes care of him during the day, but leaves at 6, which means that you have to be home then.

“Your performance at work remains strong, but you are no longer able to take part in the informal after-work get-together frequently arranged by your boss. After missing these for a month, your boss stops by your office to ask why. You tell him. He responds ‘How long will this go on?’ You tell him maybe years. After this, things change at work. For no apparent reason, your boss begins to criticize your work. At one point, HR puts you on a performance-improvement plan.

“Although you do everything they ask and more, nothing seems good enough. One day, your father falls at your house, breaking an arm. You have to leave work early to get to the hospital and miss work the next day. You call HR, letting them know what happened and put in for [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave to cover the absence. When you return, the axe falls; you get fired. The last communication you receive from your boss is an email: ‘I’m sorry it had to end like this. You will be missed. I hope that this gives you the time that you need with your father.’

“That would be discrimination under the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Granted, his piece speaks primarily to employees, but there are some nuggets worth reviewing for employers, such as a little-known fact (little known by me anyway) that some bosses seem fine and accommodating with the first child, “but their attitude is that one child should have been enough,” writes Spiggle, an employment lawyer and founder of the Spiggle Law Firm, based in Arlington, Va.

(Note to anyone reading this who considers this a familiar occurrence in his or her organization: Time for some manager training!)

Here’s another nugget: Employees claiming they were discriminated against or weren’t accommodated under family-leave law have much stronger cases if they ask for the law’s protection while they’re still working for you. Spiggle elaborates (remember, this is directed at employees, so interpret between the lines):

“Let me give you an example. Suppose that your boss says that you are a shoo-in for a promotion. Before things become official, you announce your pregnancy. Next thing you know, the promotion goes to a man who is your junior. When you confront your boss, she shrugs and says, ‘Them’s the breaks. Next round.’ Let’s suppose things only go downhill from there and you get fired, even though your performance remained unchanged.

“Here’s the thing: If you had complained about being skipped over for the promotion because you were pregnant before you were fired, you’d have a second claim of retaliation, which is easier to prove and gives you more leverage.

“There’s also a chance that, by reporting your concerns, you might get the problem fixed. Sometimes companies do the right thing when they learn that a rogue manager is violating the law. By reporting what happened, you give the company a chance to fix it.”

Probably the most telling piece of information he shares though — as does Mark McGraw in this HRE Daily post from May — is the fact that the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases are going way up. McGraw and Spiggle both cite a report, Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2016, showing a 269-percent increase in the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases between 2006 and 2015.

Many of our HREOnline.com news analyses have also mentioned this increase and the fact that far too many employers still don’t seem to get it when it comes to proactively turning that trend around.

Consider this a reminder, then, to get your anti-family-caregiver-discrimination house in order. And make sure you’re up on the nuances involved, including who has what rights and when — and precisely what this form of discrimination looks like.

Oregon’s ‘Historic’ Minimum-Wage Increase

In the ongoing saga of state-enacted minimum-wage increases in the United States (here are our HREOnline analyses and our HRE Daily posts on the subject), it seems we’ve reached a new plateau.

A gavel and a name plate with the engraving Minimum WageAccording to this release from Littler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown recently signed the first geographically-tiered minimum-wage hike in the country. Her Senate Bill 1532 also gives Oregon the nation’s current highest political statewide minimum wage.

Basically, the state’s current minimum wage is $9.25; however, beginning July 1, 2016, it will rise steadily each year through at least June 30, 2023. How much the rate will increase will depend on where an employer is located within the state.

In other words, this approach allowed the drafter of the plan to account for a higher cost of living in the Portland metro area, for instance, and a lower cost of living in rural parts of the state.

—————————————————-

Here is the actual table, with some explanation and footnotes showing the rundown of the plan:

Effective Date of Rate Increase Base Rate Exception:  Rate within Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary2 Exception:  Rate within Nonurban Counties3
July 1, 2016 $9.75 $9.75 $9.50
July 1, 2017 $10.25 $11.25 $10.00
July 1, 2018 $10.75 $12.00 $10.50
July 1, 2019 $11.25 $12.50 $11.00
July 1, 2020 $12.00 $13.25 $11.50
July 1, 2021 $12.75 $14.00 $12.00
July 1, 2022 $13.50 $14.75 $12.50

After June 30, 2023, the base rate will be adjusted for inflation, with the Portland rate set $1.25 above the base and the nonurban county rate set $1.00 below the base.

Employers should review their payroll practices and, as with any minimum wage increase, implement any required changes to comply with each of the upcoming rate adjustments starting later this year.

1 Some cities have recently raised the minimum wage higher than the projected rates established by Oregon’s new law.

2 An area encompassing the City of Portland and much of the greater tri-county area (Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties) that is managed and periodically expanded by Metro, the Portland area regional government.

3 Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties.

——————————————————

Interestingly, this piece by Kristen Hannum of the Catholic News Service suggests certain lawmakers relied on their religious faith to inform their votes. As Democratic state Rep. Rob Nosse, of Portland, told the Catholic Sentinel, the archdiocesan newspaper, “Absolutely my faith informs how I voted on this and how I think about it.”

Other religious groups in the state apparently don’t even think the new wage does enough. Jeanne Haster, executive director of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest, thought the legislation could have gone further, but she appreciates the compromises made to pass the bill. “It’s a practical approach,” she tells Hannum.

One she doesn’t even follow.

According to the story, Haster says her Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest sets its employees’ salaries according to Portland’s estimated living wage, which was pegged at $13.56 an hour in the summer of 2015. As she suggests, the Portland, Ore., poverty problem that Oregon legislators were at least willing to consider and act on, is huge:

“We try to pay a living wage rather than a minimum wage because Portland has become such a difficult city to afford to live in. I don’t know how people who make minimum wage live. I think we need to be paying people so they can escape living in poverty.”

It’ll be interesting to see if other states follow Oregon’s lead in trying to address this problem regionally and geographically. That would certainly turn this “plateau” into a whole new chapter.