Hasta La Gadget!

WASHINGTON ― American companies shell out millions of dollars a year to lawyers and consultants whose job is to kill union-organizing campaigns. Much of that work is done in the shadows, and the Trump administration is looking to keep it that way.

In a blow to unions, the Labor Department on Monday proposed rescinding what’s known as the “persuader rule,” a regulation that would ramp up disclosure requirements for employers who hire anti-union consultants. The Obama administration proposed the persuader rule last year in order to bring more transparency to a profitable industry known colloquially as union-busting.

For decades, employers have had to report to the government when they hire an outside consultant ― i.e., a “persuader” ― to try to sway employees on the question of unionizing. But under Labor Department rules, employers only have to disclose when their consultants communicate directly with employees. They don’t have to report any indirect “advice” they pay for.

That means if the consultants are simply advising managers on what to tell the workers ― the way it’s typically done ― then the employer doesn’t have to reveal the arrangement to the government, keeping it out of public view.

Unions and their allies have long considered that a gaping loophole in labor-management disclosure law. The Obama administration agreed, reasoning that workers have a right to know when their employer is feeding them a consultant’s paid-for anti-union talking points. The previous White House also believed the changes would put employer disclosures more on par with those required of unions. (Unions must report staffer salaries as well as political and organizing expenditures.)

Not surprisingly, business groups had lobbied against the persuader rule, with one group acknowledging the disclosures could embarrass employers. The American Bar Association had opposed it as well, claiming the rule would infringe on attorney-client privileges. Employers sued to stop it, and last year a federal judge in Texas issued a stay before it went into effect.

By rescinding the rule, the Trump administration would ensure that the status quo remains intact. Unions are not happy about that.

Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO labor federation, said in a statement that the persuader rule would have made sure employers “can no longer hide the shady groups they hire” to disrupt union campaigns. “Corporate CEOs may not like people knowing who they’re paying to script their union-busting, but working people do,” Goldstein said.

Union membership has plummeted in recent decades, with just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers now belonging to a union. At the same time, many employers have ramped up their opposition campaigns against union organizing. A 2009 study found that workers were significantly more likely to vote against unionizing when the employer hired consultants or held “captive audience” meetings in which they painted unions in a bad light.  

Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, rolled out the persuader rule last year as former President Barack Obama’s labor secretary. He told HuffPost in a statement Monday that when an employer’s words are really coming from a hired consultant, workers should know about it.

“The [persuader] rule doesn’t limit what employers or consultants can say,” Perez noted, “just makes sure that workers will know who’s behind the message. This decision by the Trump administration takes power out of the hands of workers and empowers corporate bosses.”

The administration’s plan to kill the rule is not a done deal yet; the Labor Department said it would be soliciting public comments on the proposal. But in its guidance, the agency laid out a number of reasons why officials are considering killing it, including the court challenges and the “burden” of more disclosure forms. The move is consistent with the Trump administration’s overall anti-regulatory agenda, as they’ve successfully repealed a slew of rules issued by the Obama White House.

Michael Wasser, the legislative director at the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, said the biggest beneficiaries of a persuader rule repeal would be the consultants who pen scripts and guide anti-union campaigns for employers. By keeping the work in the dark, he said, the Trump administration would help assure it remains lucrative.

“Employees never see the person who’s pulling the strings of the campaign; they just see managers giving these presentations,” Wasser said. “I think this is a win collected by an industry that’s found a lot of profit in broken labor law.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Suicide is notoriously difficult to predict. 

Even though mental health providers are trained to identify individuals at risk for suicide, the reality is that most of the 45,000 Americans who die by suicide each year haven’t had a recent mental health or substance abuse diagnosis and aren’t seeing a behavioral health specialist.  

Many of them, however, have visited other kinds of doctors. Approximately 80 percent of patients who die by suicide visit a health care provider in the year before their deaths, and about half do so within four weeks of death, according to the Journal of General Internal Medicine. If general practice doctors had a better sense of what to look out for, they could be able to intervene and even save lives. 

New research, published Monday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, could help. The study compared more than 2,600 patients who died by suicide between 2000 and 2013 to more than 260,000 control subjects in 2016. (All of the patients in the study had health insurance, so associations between physical health and suicide could be different for the uninsured.)

The research found 17 physical health conditions, including sleep disorders and diabetes, associated with an increased suicide risk. Nine of these conditions were associated with increased risk even after controlling for substance use and mental health diagnoses. 

“We need to reach beyond behavioral health if we really want to reduce suicide in America,” said Brian Ahmedani, lead study author and the director of psychiatry research at the Henry Ford Health System’s Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research. “Given that suicide risk appears to be associated with most physical health conditions, widespread suicide risk screening in general health settings appears warranted.”

We need to reach beyond behavioral health if we really want to reduce suicide in America.
Brian Ahmedani, lead study author

Three conditions were mostly closely associated with an increased suicide risk.

Patient with sleep disorders or an HIV/AIDs diagnosis were twice as likely to die by suicide as the control group, and patients with previous traumatic brain injury were nine times more likely to die by suicide. 

“This was among the first large-scale studies in the United States to identify a strong association between traumatic brain injury and suicide risk,” Ahmedani said.

Another big risk factor was having more than one health problem. Thirty-eight percent of individuals who died by suicide had been diagnosed with more than one of the conditions the study examined, compared to only about 16 percent of the control group. 

In addition to informing future research, Ahmedani said he hopes the study prompts health care providers to consider screening patients with certain conditions ― especially if they have more than one ― for suicide risk.

“Our study really demonstrates that it likely isn’t just one condition but rather the overall burden of health that is associated with suicide risk,” he said.

This reporting is brought to you by HuffPost’s health and science platform, The Scope. Like us on Facebook and Twitter and tell us your story: scopestories@huffingtonpost.com. 

If you or someone you know needs help, call 1-800-273-8255 for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. You can also text HELLO to 741-741 for free, 24-hour support from the Crisis Text Line. Outside of the U.S., please visit the International Association for Suicide Prevention for a database of resources.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

WASHINGTON ― Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has a pretty good idea why Senate Republican leaders are withholding the details of their health care repeal bill from the public ― because “they are so ashamed,” Schumer said on Monday.

After more than a half-dozen Senate Republicans declared they would never pass the measure the House passed earlier this year to repeal the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, legislators in the upper chamber have been working behind closed doors to come up with their own bill in hopes of finding the minimum 50 votes they need.

Like their colleagues in the House, they’ve held no hearings or public debates on what they’re considering. But they are reportedly taking the secrecy a step further and planning to keep the measure under wraps even after they send it to the Congressional Budget Office to get an official nonpartisan estimate of its impact on Americans.

The CBO projected that the House’s version of the bill, called the American Health Care Act, would drive some 23 million people off their insurance plans. Initial reports suggest the compromise plan the Senate is drawing up would actually have a similar effect.

Senate Republicans have said they’re aiming to pass something by July 4. But if they intend to keep the measure secret until the CBO is done estimating its impact, there would be very little time to vet the measure in public.

That set of circumstances prompted Schumer to accuse Republicans of cowardice, charging them and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of crafting a measure they know will only please core members of their base.

“Leader McConnell used to stress the importance of regular order in the Senate,” Schumer said. “Why is he proceeding with the Republican health care bill in the most irregular way?”

Schumer answered his own question.

“Republicans don’t want the American people to see the bill. They are so ashamed of their health care plan, they want to pass it in the dead of night,” he said. “If they were proud of the bill, they would say, ‘Let’s debate it.’ They’re ashamed of the bill.”

Still, GOP lawmakers are proceeding because they have to appease voters who insist on ending Obamacare, no matter what the effect is, he said.

“They know they have the hard right on their backs. They’ve got to do something,” Schumer said. “But at least have the decency, the honor, a little bit of courage to put the bill out there and let us debate it and let us amend it.”

McConnell offered no details about the legislation when he opened the Senate session on Monday, but did acknowledge that his party is struggling with it.

“Members will keep working this week, because because bringing relief from Obamacare may not be easy, but it is necessary,” McConnell said.

Obamacare has been running into increasing difficulties, which analysts blame largely on President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress for generating uncertainty over the health care law’s future.

Schumer contrasted the GOP’s effort to repeal Obamacare unfavorably with the Democratic push to pass the law in the first place, noting that his party held hearings for more than a year, with Democrats accepting dozens of GOP amendments. 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=593ac192e4b0c5a35c9ec822,586a9074e4b0d9a5945c155a

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

At a time when more and more companies are going out of their way to promote work-life balance, Walmart is punishing workers for having a life outside of work.

Hourly Walmart workers who miss their scheduled shifts because they’re sick or having a family emergency risk getting fired under the company’s punitive policy on sick leave. The policy is particularly harsh toward women, who most often care for children and family members outside of work. 

Each time a worker misses a scheduled shift ― the schedule is worked out three weeks in advance ― they earn a “point.” Accrue enough points and you’re fired, or as company spokesman Blake Jackson puts it: “You’re eligible for termination.”

Jackson says that managers have discretion when deciding to hand out points, and if someone has a good excuse for missing a shift, they’re not penalized.

But Walmart workers tell a vastly different story in a report released earlier this month from A Better Balance, a nonprofit legal advocacy group. The group surveyed about 1,000 of the company’s employees. Eighty-five percent said Walmart regularly punishes people for taking time off because of a disability or serious illness. 

The report claims that Walmart often acts unlawfully, penalizing workers who should be protected under various federal laws. Workers said their managers would often ignore notes from doctors ― not even reading them before issuing points.

Katie Orzehowski told HuffPost she missed a few shifts from her job at a Walmart in North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, after she had a miscarriage last year ― and was docked six or seven points.

When she was back at work and discovered she was still bleeding, her boss said leaving work early would cost her a half point. Later that year, Orzehowski ― who makes $10.20 an hour ― came to work when she had the flu. “I’m thinking, ‘Oh jeez, I can’t afford to miss work,’” she said.

It’s clear that these are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of similar stories we heard time and again.
Elizabeth Gedmark, senior staff attorney at A Better Balance

Walmart disputes Orzehowski’s story, which she also shared with The New York Times.

“We do not have any information that would support that Ms. Orzehowski advised us of a medical reason for her absences. If that were the case, she could have used those medical records to apply for a leave or accommodation,” Walmart said in a statement.

According to the Better Balance report, Walmart has a policy of not retaining, or even looking at, doctor’s notes from employees. Orzehowski said she brought in a note. “They’ll turn down every excuse you have,” she said.

“The stories in our report speak for themselves. And it’s clear that these are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of similar stories we heard time and again,” Elizabeth Gedmark, a senior staff attorney at A Better Balance, told HuffPost.

“We heard from hundreds of workers who have been punished for absences related to serious illnesses and disabilities. In particular, Walmart’s routine failure to accept doctors’ notes is a major focus of the report ― and exactly why they claim to not know about a worker’s medical condition.”

Walmart said it hasn’t examined the survey in detail and notes that it cannot speak to the accuracy of the anonymous anecdotes in it.

It’s important to consider that Walmart, the largest private employer in the U.S., is not punishing workers for taking paid sick time. Most of these workers simply don’t get paid when they miss work ― though last year, the company did start allowing employees to earn paid time off (including vacation and sick time) if they work a certain number of hours.

The company says the point system is necessary to keep workers from calling at the last minute and leaving their colleagues short-handed.

Workers do need to miss work on occasion, and the company has “processes in place to assist them,” spokesman Jackson told HuffPost, emphasizing that Walmart complies with federal laws.

“We have countless Walmart associates who successfully partnered with the company to authorize their absences from work,” the company said in a statement. “We believe we have the right training measures in place to help communicate our attendance, disability and pregnancy policies to our associates.”

She was on her deathbed when I requested time off to be with her. My request was denied. Walmart said I would be fired if I took the time off. My mother died alone.
Walmart worker quoted in A Better Balance’s new report

Yet even if the points system is administered with high discretion and within the bounds of the law, it still leaves workers in a terrible position.

Employees say the system effectively scares them from taking sick time and adds stress to already stressful situations. Women, who are often responsible for children at home, are in a particularly tight spot. You can’t always plan in advance for when your child gets an ear infection or needs to be picked up early from school.

The stories in the Better Balance report are heartbreaking: One worker said her manager threatened that she’d earn points if she took time off to be with her mother, who was getting hospice care.

“She was on her deathbed when I requested time off to be with her,” this worker says in the report. “My request was denied. Walmart said I would be fired if I took the time off. My mother died alone in early April 2017. Not being with her when she passed was devastating.”

Other employees describe receiving points for taking time off to handle chronic conditions like asthma or emergency medical conditions like a heart attack. A mother got points for taking her son to the hospital when he had pneumonia.

“Giving a worker a disciplinary ‘point’ for being absent due to a disability or for taking care of themselves or a loved one with a serious medical condition is not only unfair,” write the report’s authors. “In many instances, it runs afoul of federal, state and local law.”

A Better Balance, which has also filed a separate pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against Walmart on behalf of two employees, worked with the labor group OUR Walmart to conduct its survey via Facebook, targeting users who identified as Walmart employees.

Walmart’s points policy likely wouldn’t comply with state law in Massachusetts, which passed a paid sick leave law just a few years ago. Employers in the state cannot take action against workers for using paid sick leave, explains Amanda Baer, an associate at the law firm Mirick O’Connell in Westborough, Massachusetts, who works on labor and employment issues. (Walmart said that it always complies with local laws.)

The points system is especially tricky, Baer said. “You could have an employee who’s one point away from being fired, but gets the flu,” she said. “You don’t want your sick employees coming to work and getting everyone else sick.” 

The policy also puts customers at risk: Who wants to get sick because you bought laundry detergent from a cashier with the flu?

The United States is the only developed country that does not mandate that employers provide paid sick leave or maternity leave. But there are a few federal laws that give workers protections when they need time off.

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides 12 weeks unpaid time off to employees at companies with 50 or more workers who have worked there for at least 1,250 hours. That time doesn’t have to be taken all at once.

You can use FMLA time for a serious medical condition or to care for an immediate family member with a serious medical condition. Prenatal care and chemotherapy, for example, would both be covered under FMLA. If you’re out for three days or more from work, that should be covered under FMLA, explains Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center.

The key protection the law offers? Job security. “You can’t be retaliated against,” Martin said. An employer can’t threaten disciplinary action. And it’s your boss’ responsibility to recognize if you might qualify for FMLA, she added.

Yet Walmart told just 23 percent of workers with absences that likely qualified them for FMLA leave that they were eligible for it, according to the Better Balance survey.

The Americans with Disabilities Act also offers job protections for employees with disabilities who need reasonable amounts of time off. Other states and localities have laws in place that protect pregnant women from discrimination.

Last year, Roni Gumbert was fired from the same Walmart in Pennsylvania where Orzehowski works for taking too much time off. 

Like most working parents, the 33-year-old needed to leave work to deal with a family issue: Her 1-year-old was getting chronic ear infections, and needed to be picked up early from day care or even taken to the hospital.

Meanwhile, Gumbert was also dealing with her 74-year-old father, who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease and early onset dementia. He landed in the emergency room more than once for falling down the stairs at his apartment building. Gumbert’s mother, who had been helping with child care, had died suddenly the year before.

Each time she called in or was late, Gumbert was penalized ― receiving a point for missing a full shift and a half point for leaving early or arriving late.

“I talked to the general manager and the store manager,” Gumbert told HuffPost. “Nobody was willing to be understanding.”

Gumbert, who worked for the company less than a year, said she earned eight points before losing her job.

According to Walmart, Gumbert’s manager gave her 10 points for 20 “occurrences,” the term for missed or late shifts. 

The company wouldn’t provide further detail on why certain shifts were exempted, citing privacy concerns. 

Other companies are moving toward more understanding leave policies.

Earlier this year, Facebook expanded its leave policy to help workers who need time off to care for sick relatives or for bereavement. The company now gives all employees six weeks of family leave to care for ailing family members, plus three additional days to care for a family member with a short-term illness, like a child with the flu, and 20 days of bereavement leave ― twice as much as before.

“People should be able both to work and be there for their families,” the company’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, said in a Facebook post announcing the new policy. “No one should face this trade-off.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Hey, Blizzard: you’re not the only developer that can remaster a classic real-time strategy game. Microsoft has unveiled Age of Empires: Definitive Edition, a rework of Ensemble Studio’s history-based conquer-the-map title. Graphics and sound get the…