A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
In an op-ed for today’s New York Times, Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser looks at Burger King’s refusal to support a penny-a-pound increase in the price they pay for Florida-grown tomatoes and how this affects the migrant workers who pick the tomatoes. His description of abuses of undocumented migrant workers sounds familiar and provides a backdrop against which to discuss the low wages:
Perhaps 80 percent of the migrants in Florida are illegal immigrants and thus especially vulnerable to abuse. During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing and kept in chained trailers at night.
Farm workers earn approximately $56/day for handling about two tons of tomatoes; wages are calculated based on piece rates rather than hours worked. Existing agreements with Taco Bell and McDonald’s have improved some migrant worker wages to as much as $90+ a day. (That averages out to a little over $8/hour for hard physical labor, an amount I consider horrifically low.) The penny-a-pound increase went directly to migrant workers. However, Burger King’s refusal to play is undermining these hard-earned improvements; according to Schlosser, these workers now face a 40% pay cut as tomato growers “cancel the deals already struck with Taco Bell and McDonald’s.”
What about buyers who want to voluntarily pay extra to make sure that the workers who harvest their food can themselves afford to eat?
Now the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange has threatened a fine of $100,000 for any grower who accepts an extra penny per pound for migrant wages. The organization claims that such a surcharge would violate “federal and state laws related to antitrust, labor and racketeering.”
What can I say? Wow.
From our own Oregonian, this lovely advertising image:
Sigh. Still, the Stephen Colbert poster in my office is there to stay. My heart belongs to you, Stephen! Always! Even if I’m late to this particular party.
Sorry for the post unrelated to nonprofitness. At least it’s kind of political.
Just got this press release from the people at NCAF.
NCAF Blasts Bush’s Veto of Labor-HHS
WASHINGTON (Nov. 13, 2007) Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that administer self-help to low-income Americans nationwide are exasperated by President Bush’s veto of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill.
“This is the height of hypocrisy,” said National Community Action Foundation Executive Director David Bradley. “The President’s veto of Labor-HHS appropriations and passage of the Department of Defense appropriations in the same day is a clear-cut case of misplaced spending priorities. America will support investments in Iraq, but not invest in the education and well-being of U.S. children, low-wage workers and retirees.”
The bill would have increased Community Action’s core resource, the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and provided an increase for Head Start funding that many Community Action Agencies integrate with additional child and family development services. The bill also would have increased funding for senior programs that CAAs use for services such as senior centers and Meals on Wheels.
In addition, the Labor-HHS bill allocated 11.6 percent more for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, in which Community Action Agencies are reporting significant application increases. President Bush’s 2008 budget request contained a 17.5 percent cut in LIHEAP below 2007 funding levels.
“Recent forecasts of energy prices that are 11 percent higher than last year and colder months ahead have many low-wage working families worrying about how much energy they will need to stay warm this winter,” Bradley said. “President Bush’s veto is out of touch with the needs and expectations of the American people.
“The Labor-HHS appropriations bill would have reversed cuts in human services programs enacted over the past several years and would have made key reinvestments in America’s domestic priorities,” he said. “Voters expect our government to meet America’s domestic needs in a fiscally responsible way, and they expect the parties to work together to meet those needs.”
The McKinney-Vento Act, which provides funding for a variety of homeless programs, is currently up for reauthorization for 2008. HR 840, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, and SB 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act (CPEHA), are the House and Senate versions, respectively.
One of the programs I manage is a McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care program in rural Oregon. My interest in these two bills relates specifically to their impact on homeless program design and implementation in rural areas. Of the two, I strongly prefer the Senate version, for reasons I will discuss. However, both bills propose some much-needed changes, which I hope will be included in the final version of this legislation:
- Both proposals call for expanded definitions of homelessness, specifically allowing funding to be used for people who are “doubled up,” living with someone else because of loss of their own housing or economic hardship. Under current rules, people who are couch-surfing do not meet the definition of homelessness.
- Both add funding for homelessness prevention activities.
- Both address collection of personally-identifying information for Homeless Management Information Systems, which has been required by McKinney-Vento legislation in the past, in light of VAWA legislation that forbids collection of such information for victims of domestic violence.
The changes proposed by HEARTH that concern me most are related to matching requirements and local planning processes. Past legislation has required a 25% cash match for McKinney-Vento funds used for Supportive Housing Program supportive services, that is, for non-leasing activities. For whatever reason, dollars used for leasing have not been subject to a cash match requirement in the past; I have suspected that this was related to the housing emphasis of the funds. HEARTH appears to change this practice, requiring a 25% match on all funds received from the grant:
An entity who submits an application and receives a grant under this subtitle shall make available contributions, in cash or in donated services, in an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the Federal funds provided under the grant. [Sec. 430 of HR 840]
This has been interpreted elsewhere to include both housing and services. A National Low Income Housing Coalition press release, describing the changes HEARTH proposes, notes that new regulations would “require a 25% match to be met either in cash or with in-kind contributions for all housing and supportive services” [NLIHC].
If implemented, this change will have a disproportionate impact on rural Continua of Care. Continue reading 2008 Homeless funding reauthorization and rural communities
It hasn’t been in the news too much, but the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 was a significant piece of legislation that will impact many peoples’ lives. The House Education and Labor Committee described it as “the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill” [source]. The President signed the bill into law on September 27, 2007.
Overall, the legislation seems like a rather mixed bag to me, but I am definitely in favor of increasing Pell Grant funds, lowering student loan interest rates, and offering student loan forgiveness to “public service employees”; it’s a step, however small, to making education more accessible for the millions of people who aren’t wealthy and have not chosen professions that will ever make them wealthy.
Of particular interest here is the section related to nonprofit workers. The final language of that section of the bill (ah, the search for an unbowdlerized version can be hard) is included below, however appalling the format may be. Continue reading Update: Loan forgiveness for nonprofit employees
I’ve been reading Jeanne’s blog, Social Class and Quakers, since she began writing it in August. It’s one of a large number of Quaker blogs I read, a virtual substitute for the Quaker Meeting I feel I can no longer attend. Her focus is especially compelling to me, for a number of reasons, not the least of which are my work (helping people who are in trouble primarily because of their economic class), and my own life experiences.
Her most recent post is of a survey designed to point out the advantages we may have that have nothing to do with our own work but rather have been handed to us because we were born at a particular place and time to particular parents. Each applicable statement is in bold type. Jeanne posted the survey with permission from the authors; information is at the bottom of the post. If you decide to repost, please do include that attribution information.
Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor.
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home
Were read children’s books by a parent
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18 Continue reading Making note of privilege
The Ford Family Foundation, with which many people in the Oregon nonprofit scene are familiar, has a great resource for Oregon and Siskiyou County, California residents who “want to make a difference in their communities”: a list of some thirty books on leadership, effective organizations, community collaborations, and youth, family, and schools. These are available free of charge, and in return, you are requested to write a brief evaluation of the book.
My connection with the Ford Foundation goes back to 2003, when I was selected as a Ford Scholar and given truly generous assistance through the end of my undergraduate years. These days, one of my staff members is participating in one of their five-year community leadership programs. The free books program is just another of the many ways that they are working to empower communities in Oregon. So, check it out.
Select Books page Continue reading Free books from Ford Family Foundation
An IHT story this morning discusses the stagnation and decline of remittances from Mexican migrants working in the US. Immigration crackdowns, greater concerns over deportation, and difficulty obtaining work without documentation are among the reasons cited. However, the situation of Mexican migrants goes against the global trends:
In the rest of the world, remittances are rising, up as much as 10 percent a year, according to Donald Terry of the Inter-American Development Bank. Last year, migrant workers worldwide sent more than $300 billion to developing countries — almost twice the amount of foreign direct investment. (IHT)
Two interesting developments as a result of this new environment for migrant workers are noted briefly: migrants in the US are saving more money for emergencies, and their families at home are engaging in more microenterprise, especially related to agriculture, as the flow of money from the North dries up.
International Herald Tribune article
I can’t help but post when Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. That makes the month for me.
Now, if he would just win the presidency again.
All of you lit/film criticism junkies out there might enjoy this piece at PopPolitics.
I love intelligent people who can write clearly and accessibly, with a huge dose of brilliance thrown in for added value.
|
|