Yvette Clarke on Jobs Democrat

Voted NO on allowing compensatory time off for working overtime.

• Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to authorize private employers to provide compensatory time off to private employees at a rate of 1 1/2 hours per hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required.
• Authorizes an employer to provide compensatory time only if it is in accordance with an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
• Prohibits an employee from accruing more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
• Requires an employee's employer to provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding year.
• Requires an employer to give employees 30-day notice before discontinuing compensatory time off.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:

Rep. COURTNEY: This is the fifth time that the majority party has introduced [this bill since] 1997; and each time, the huge flaws in this legislation have resulted in its complete collapse. And once again, it doesn't deserve that support. Despite the representations made in its title--that it promotes workers' flexibility, that it gives workers choice--a closer examination of the bill shows the opposite is true. The better way to describe this bill is the More Work, Pay Less bill.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act created a bright line to protect people's right to a 40-hour work week, and make sure that that next hour after 40 hours is paid for with the time-and-a-half of wages. That created the weekend in America. That created the time off that middle class families have taken for granted for decades.

What this bill does is it blurs that line; it creates total chaos in terms of trying to come up with a system to set up ground rules with a case-by-case written contract, and then leaves it to the enforcement of State Labor Departments Wage and Hours Divisions, which are totally incapable of going into the tens of thousands of workplaces all across America.

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY-15): The House, for weeks, has attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are hardworking people that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Rep. JERRY WELLER (R, IL-11): This important legislation provides additional needed assistance to the long-term unemployed. It's important that we pass this legislation today as our last act before we leave for the election campaign.

This legislation focuses the most additional benefits on workers and States where the unemployment rate is highest and where jobs are hardest to find. This program continues the requirement that those benefiting from extended unemployment benefits had to have worked at least 20 weeks. Americans were rightly concerned about proposals to eliminate that work requirement and allow 39 weeks or, under the legislation before us today, as many as 59 weeks of total unemployment benefits to be paid to those who have previously only worked for a few weeks.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None voiced.

Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill.

Congressional Summary: Provides for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY2012. Revises agricultural and related programs, including provisions respecting:

1. commodity programs;
2. conservation;
3. trade;
4. nutrition;
5. credit;
6. rural development;
7. research and related matters;
8. forestry;
9. energy;
10. horticulture and organic agriculture;
11. livestock;
12. crop insurance and disaster assistance;
13. socially disadvantaged and limited resource producers; and
14. miscellaneous programs.

This bill lacks fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our trade objectives of securing greater market access for American farmers. [Hence] I must veto H.R. 6124.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary of Agriculture to talk about implementation. So [despite the two vetoes], the work has been going on within the department of agriculture to get ready for implementation.

This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress. It does address all of the issues that have been brought to the Agriculture Committee.

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.

Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Increase the federal minimum wage to:
1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

Proponents support voting YES because:

We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.

We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

Form unions by card-check instead of secret ballot.

Clarke signed H.R.1409&S.560

Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit.

Requires that priority be given to any charge that, while employees were seeking representation by a labor organization, an employer:
1. discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee to encourage or discourage membership in the labor organization;
2. threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in order to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of guaranteed self-organization or collective bardaining rights; or
3. engaged in any unfair labor practice that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of such guaranteed rights. Source: Employee Free Choice Act 09-HR1409 on Mar 10, 2009

   Rated 0% by CEI, indicating a pro-worker rights voting record.

   Clarke scores 0% by CEI on union issues

   The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free markets and limited government, has created a Congressional Labor Scorecard for the 112th Congress focusing on worker issues. The score is determined based on policies that support worker freedom and the elimination of Big Labor's privileges across the country.

   Votes in the current Congress score include:
   • Bill: H.R. 658, LaTourette Amendment No. 21: NO on repealing changes to the Railway Labor Act's voting rules.
   • Bill: H.R. 658, Gingrey Amendment No. 18: YES to prohibit Federal Aviation Administration employees from using official--that is, taxpayer sponsored--time for union activities during the official workday.
   • Bill: H.R. 1, Price Amendment No. 410: YES to defund the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
   • Bill: H.R. 1, Guinta Amendment No. 166: YES to prohibit imposing "prevailing wage" and other requirements in project labor agreements that advantage unionized contractors.
   • Bill: H.R. 2017, Scalise Amendment No. 388: YES to prohibit project labor agreements in DHS contracts
   • Bill: H.R. 2055, LaTourette Amendment No. 411: NO on funding for federal project labor agreements.
   • Bill: H.R. 1, King Amendment No. 273: YES to eliminate the "Davis Bacon" prevailing wage rate requirement for federal projects.
   • Bill: H.R. 2017, Gosar Amendment No. 386: YES to eliminate the "Davis Bacon" prevailing wage rate requirement for Department of Homeland Security contracts.
   • Bill: H.R. 2354: Gosar Amendment No. 655: YES to restrict application of the Davis-Bacon Act to contracts exceeding $20 million.
   • Bill: H.R. 2017: Rokita Amendment No. 2: YES to prohibit collective bargaining at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
   Source: CEI website 12-CEI-H on May 2, 2012

   Raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2016.

   Clarke co-sponsored Minimum Wage Fairness Act

   Congressional summary: Increases the federal minimum wage for employees to:

   1. $8.20 an hour beginning 6 months after enactment
   2. $9.15 an hour beginning 1 year later,
   3. $10.10 an hour beginning 2 years later, and
   4. an amount determined by increases in the Consumer Price Index, beginning annually after 3 years.
   • Increases the federal minimum wage for tipped employees to $3.00 an hour beginning 6 months after enactment, with annual CPI adjustments.

   Proponent's argument in favor (RaiseTheMinimumWage.com): The federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour remains decades out of date, and the federal minimum wage for tipped workers--$2.13 per hour--has not increased in over 20 years. The minimum wage of the past provided significantly more buying power than it does today. The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.56 today when adjusted for inflation.

   Opponent's argument against: (Neil King in Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24, 2014): The CBO concluded that a jump in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could eliminate 500,000 jobs. For Republicans, the report provided ammunition that a higher minimum wage would kill jobs. Democrats pointed to the CBO's findings that the higher wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. But both sides missed a key finding: That a smaller hike from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour would cause almost no pain, and still lift 300,000 people out of poverty while raising the incomes of 7.6 million people.Congressional Budget Office report:: Once fully implemented, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3%. Some people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings, due to the heightened demand for goods and services. The increased earnings for low-wage workers would total $31 billion. Accounting for all increases and decreases, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

   Source: S.1737 & H.R.1010 14-H1010 on Mar 6, 2013

   Raise minimum wage to 15% above poverty level.

   Clarke co-sponsored H.R.122

   Congressional Summary:

   1. The federal minimum wage should be adjusted every four years so that a person working for it may earn, as a minimum, an annual income at least 15% higher than the federal poverty threshold for a family of four;
   2. it should be set at a level high enough to allow two full-time minimum wage workers to earn an income above the national housing wage; and
   3. Congress, or any local or state government, may establish a higher minimum wage.

   Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Time magazine, 9/5/13): The Washington DC council sent a bill to the mayor's desk that would require large retailers like Walmart and Target to pay its workers a "living wage" of $12.50 per hour--significantly higher than the District's $8.25 per hour minimum wage. Here are common misunderstandings about the DC bill and minimum wage laws in general:

   • Myth 1: "Living Wage Bills help all workers." The DC law exempts retailers with stores smaller than 75,000 square feet and less than $1 billion in sales, so it doesn't help many workers in small and medium sized businesses. The size requirement has the effect of protecting giant retailers that happen to do business in relatively small stores like Nike and Apple.
   • Myth 2: "High minimum wages reduce employment." Standard economic theory says that if you raise the minimum wage, businesses will hire fewer workers. But over the past decade, San Francisco has instituted a minimum-wage requirement that rises with inflation, currently $10.55. These laws have not reduced employment; instead, businesses seem to have merely adjusted their models by training workers and retaining them longer.
   • Myth 3: "Inflation has shrunk the minimum wage." Advocates point out the minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, has actually fallen to $7.25 today from the equivalent (in today's dollars) of $10.70 in 1968. But the earned income tax credit has more than made up for that decline. Source: Original Living Wage Act 15_H122 on Jan 6, 2015

     Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue.

     Clarke signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
     Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when:
     1. a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted;
     2. an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or
     3. an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid.
     Allows an aggrieved person to obtain relief, including recovery of back pay, for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge. Applies the preceding provisions to claims of compensation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

     [Note: A woman named Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit for gender-based discriminatory compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter could only sue for damages going back 180 days, and the 180 days was calculated from the time her employment contract was initiated, i.e., her hire date. This new law changes the 180-day period to two years, and also calculates the date from the time of each paycheck, rather than the hire date. -- Ed.]

     Source: S.181&H.R.11 2009-S181 on Jan 29, 2009

     Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination.

     Clarke signed Paycheck Fairness Act
     A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.
     • Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.
     • Prohibits employer retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee in response to a sex discrimination investigation.
     • Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or punitive damages.
     • States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.
     Source: S.182&H.R.12 2009-S182 on Jan 8, 2009

     Sponsored bill for strengthening union organizing.

     Clarke co-sponsored PRO Act

     H.R.842 & S.420: Protecting the Right to Organize Act: This bill expands various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace:

     1. revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards;
     2. permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and
     3. prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.
     The bill also allows collective bargaining agreements to require all employees represented by the bargaining unit to contribute fees to the labor organization for the cost of such representation.

     Biden Administration in SUPPORT: The Administration strongly supports The PRO Act. America was not built by Wall Street. It was built by the middle class, and unions built the middle class. Unions put power in the hands of workers. H.R. 842 would strengthen and protect workers' right to form a union by assessing penalties on employers who violate workers' right to organize.

     Rep. Mo Brooks in OPPOSITION: H.R. 842 [is] a radical union bill that tramples the rights of citizens by forcing them to enter into union servitude, including:

     • Overturns right-to-work laws in 27 states, thereby forcing citizens, against their will, to pay millions of dollars in dues to labor unions.
     • Denies citizens' rights to vote by secret ballot on whether to join a union by imposing a biased "card-check" scheme.
     • Deprives individuals of entrepreneurial opportunities. The PRO Act would eliminate the franchise industry and sharing economy as we know them.
     Legislative Outcome:Passed House 222-204-4 (Rollcall 82) on 03/09/2021; received and read in the Senate on 3/23; no further Senate action during 2021. Source: H.R.842/S.420 21-HR842 on Feb 4, 2021

     Click here for definitions & background information on Jobs. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Yvette Clarke. Click here for a summary of Yvette Clarke's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Yvette Clarke's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Yvette Clarke. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Yvette Clarke. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Yvette Clarke. Click here for other NY politicians. Click here for NY primary archives. Click here for NY secondary archives.
     2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Jobs:			Yvette Clarke on other issues:
     NY Gubernatorial: Andrew Cuomo Andrew Giuliani Andrew Yang Bill de Blasio Cynthia Nixon Eric Adams George Pataki Howie Hawkins John DeFrancisco Kathy Hochul Kirsten Gillibrand Larry Sharpe Lee Zeldin Letitia James Marc Molinaro Mike Bloomberg Rob Astorino Shaun Donovan Tom Suozzi Zephyr Teachout NY Senatorial: Alex Merced Charles Schumer Chele Farley Dave Webber Kirsten Gillibrand Marc Molinaro Scott Noren Wendy Long	Republican Freshman class of 2021: AL-1: Jerry Carl(R) AL-2: Barry Moore(R) CA-8: Jay Obernolte(R) CA-50: Darrell Issa(R) CO-3: Lauren Boebert(R) FL-3: Kat Cammack(R) FL-15: Scott Franklin(R) FL-19: Byron Donalds(R) GA-9: Andrew Clyde(R) GA-14: Marjorie Taylor Greene(R) IA-2: Mariannette Miller-Meeks(R) IA-4: Randy Feenstra(R) IL-15: Mary Miller(R) IN-5: Victoria Spartz(R) KS-1: Tracey Mann(R) KS-2: Jake LaTurner(R) LA-5: Luke Letlow(R) MI-3: Peter Meijer(R) MI-10: Lisa McClain(R) MT-0: Matt Rosendale(R) NC-11: Madison Cawthorn(R) NM-3: Teresa Leger Fernandez(D) NY-2: Andrew Garbarino(R) NY-22: Claudia Tenney(R) OR-2: Cliff Bentz(R) PR-0: Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon(R) TN-1: Diana Harshbarger(R) TX-4: Pat Fallon(R) TX-11: August Pfluger(R) TX-13: Ronny Jackson(R) TX-17: Pete Sessions(R) TX-22: Troy Nehls(R) TX-23: Tony Gonzales(R) TX-24: Beth Van Duyne(R) UT-1: Blake Moore(R) VA-5: Bob Good(R) WI-5: Scott Fitzgerald(R)	Incoming Democratic Freshman class of 2021: CA-53: Sara Jacobs(D) GA-5: Nikema Williams(D) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux(D) HI-2: Kai Kahele(D) IL-3: Marie Newman(D) IN-1: Frank Mrvan(D) MA-4: Jake Auchincloss(D) MO-1: Cori Bush(D) NC-2: Deborah Ross(D) NC-6: Kathy Manning(D) NY-15: Ritchie Torres(D) NY-16: Jamaal Bowman(D) NY-17: Mondaire Jones(D) WA-10: Marilyn Strickland(D) Republican takeovers as of 2021: CA-21: David Valadao(R) defeated T.J. Cox(D) CA-39: Young Kim(R) defeated Gil Cisneros(D) CA-48: Michelle Steel(R) defeated Harley Rouda(D) FL-26: Carlos Gimenez(R) defeated Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) FL-27: Maria Elvira Salazar(R) defeated Donna Shalala(D) IA-1: Ashley Hinson(R) defeated Abby Finkenauer(D) MN-7: Michelle Fischbach(R) defeated Collin Peterson(D) NM-2: Yvette Herrell(R) defeated Xochitl Small(D) NY-11: Nicole Malliotakis(R) defeated Max Rose(D) OK-5: Stephanie Bice(R) defeated Kendra Horn(D) SC-1: Nancy Mace(R) defeated Joe Cunningham(D) UT-4: Burgess Owens(R) defeated Ben McAdams(D) Special Elections 2021-2022: CA-22: replacing Devin Nunes (R, SPEL summer 2022) FL-20: replacing Alcee Hastings (D, SPEL Jan. 2022) LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile NY politicians Contact info: Email Contact Form Mailing Address: Longworth HOB 1029, Washington, DC 20515 Official Website

     
     
     
     
     
     Page last updated: Feb 18, 2022