June, 22 2015, 03:15pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Fast Food Workers Give Emotional Testimony on $15 Wage at Final Hearing
Galvanizing Support for Governor Cuomo’s Historic Wage Board, Fast Food Workers Deliver Stacks of 160,000 Petition Signatures in Support of $15
ALBANY, New York
In their final opportunity to testify publicly about what it's like trying to support a family in New York on $8.75, hundreds of cooks and cashiers from McDonald's, Burger King, and KFC converged on the last fast food wage board held in Albany on Monday. Saying that having extra money in their pockets would not only be beneficial to their families but to the economy as well, fast food workers made their case for $15.
"I can't stand to think that my children will grow up worrying about whether there's going to be a roof over their heads or food in their lunchboxes," saidJareema Vanison, who works at an Albany McDonald's. "I want what every parent wants-- for my kids to grow up feeling safe and secure, with a bright future-- and I just can't promise that making as little as I do. That's why I urge the wage board to recommend $15. It's not just for me, it's for my family, and it's for our future."
The workers delivered stacks of 160,000 petition signatures in support of a $15 fast food minimum wage, gathered over the course of the past month -- concretely demonstrating support for their cause.
The worker's call for $15 also had support of a wide range of powerful progressive organizations including New York Communities for Change, Make the Road, the Working Families Party, MoveOn, Brigade, CREDO Action, Democracy for America, Citizen Action of New York, Strong Economy for All Coalition and Ultraviolet.
"By sticking together and speaking out, New Yorkers are leading the way to a new standard for fast-food workers and our families across the country,"said Ashona Osborne, an Arby's worker from Pittsburgh and a member of the National Organizing Committee of the Fight for $15, who traveled all the way to Albany to support fast food workers in New York State. "Workers from Pittsburgh to Pasadena urge Gov. Cuomo's Wage Board to recommend $15 an hour for New York's fast-food workers. When workers in New York--where our movement started in 2012--win $15, workers everywhere win."
Just before the doors opened for the last of four wage board hearings scheduled in New York State, fast food workers and their allies in clergy, labor and government gathered outside to voice their support for $15--rallying around the idea that a meaningful wage hike would stimulate local economies from Long Island to Rochester, and free workers from dependence on food stamps and other government services.
"It makes no sense that employees of some of the richest corporations in the United States should have to rely on our local property taxpayer's dollars for subsidies just to survive," said Ulster County Executive Mike Hein. "We are pleased that a state wage board has been impaneled and urge the board to do the right thing and recommend a $15 minimum wage for fast-food workers of national chains. It's the right thing to do for the workers, their children and for the local property taxpayers too."
"At my small business, I start my employees at $15 an hour and believe that every employee in every industry in New York should be paid a living wage. That's why I'm here today calling on the Wage Board to act to ensure all workers are paid a wage that allows them to pay their bills," said Amy Collins, owner of New Shelves Publishing Services. "If I can afford it, so can McDonald's."
Fast food workers have brought the Fight for $15 to national prominence. After expanding the fight to more than 230 US cities and across the globe, and winning $15 minimum wage in Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the campaign is turning its sights back on New York State--looking to make it the first with a statewide $15 minimum.
"I applaud fast food workers in the State of New York and across the country who have been holding the line for the last three years advocating for themselves and their families," said Albany Common Council Member Dorcey Applyrs. "The time is now to stop talking about income inequality and start giving a hand-up to our fast food workers. Let's raise the wage to $15."
According to a recently released report by the National Employment Law Project, fast food jobs have taken an outsized role in the economy in recent years, growing 57 percent between 2000 and 2014. Private sector jobs overall grew only 7 percent during the same period.
The more than 182,000 fast food workers in New York State are among the lowest-paid workers not only in New York but in the country. Full-time employment in a fast food job still leaves a worker under the poverty line, and requires supplementing with food stamps, Medicaid, and other social services.
Fifty-two percent of fast food workers nationally - higher than any other industry--have at least one family member on food stamps, Medicaid or other social services, costing taxpayers $7 billion in public assistance nationwide. New York taxpayers subsidize fast food corporations to the tune of $700 million a year in public assistance to fast food workers.
The fast food industry can afford to do better. While workers struggle to meet basic quality of life thresholds like shelter and food security, the fast food industry is booming amid increased sales and worker productivity: it posted $551 billion in global profits in 2014, a number which is projected to grow to $645 billion by 2018.
Elected leaders, community activists and economic experts spoke about the effect that a $15 fast food minimum wage would have for workers, and for struggling communities all over the State.
"New York's Wage Board hearings have been democracy in action," said Bill Lipton, State Director of the New York Working Families Party. "The members of the board have now heard from fast food workers all across this state why they and their families need a living wage-- $15 an hour--and why they need it now. They have an opportunity to fundamentally transform the lives of fast food workers, and should not let it pass by. The Working Families Party strongly urges all three members of the Wage Board to raise the fast food minimum wage to $15 an hour."
"Most New Yorkers are working harder than ever before, while wages have been stuck in place for decades. If corporations like McDonald's had shared our nation's economic progress fairly with employees, the minimum wage would be more than $18 an hour," said Karen Scharff, Executive Director of Citizen Action of New York. "That's why it's critical that the Wage Board take action to boost pay in the fast-food industry to $15 and make the Empire State a leader again for working families and the middle class."
"Economists say that slow wage growth is the biggest problem in the American economy right now: Governor Cuomo and the Wage Board should attack the problem head-on by boosting the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $15 an hour," said Michael Kink, Executive Director of the StrongEconomy for All Coalition. "It will help workers, it will help families and it will help power the New York economy from the bottom up."
"A lack of good paying jobs forces people who are working hard every day to turn to social services as a means to bridge the gap between their low pay and the actual cost of living and raising a family. It's time to close that gap," said Shana Davis, President of the Capital District Chapter Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. "The wage board can do it by backing $15. Without an increase to the minimum wage, hundreds of thousands of workers will continue to fall behind."
"The wage board can be moral trail-blazers by doing do the right thing and backing a $15 an hour fair wage for fast-food workers," said Reverend Valerie Faust, Pastor of Rhema Power Ministries.
"I work at Taco Bell, and my sister works at McDonald's. We're supporting our mother and my son. We cannot make it on minimum wage anymore. We need $15 an hour and we need it now. Without it, my son will be one child in another whole generation of children in Rochester growing up in poverty,"said Joscline Harvey, a Taco Bell employee from Rochester.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular