October, 17 2019, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lia Weintraub, lweintraub@populardemocracy.org, 202-618-2482
Taylor Campbell, taylor@united4respect.org, 202-854-9571
Following New Findings on the Effects of Unstable Schedules, Congress to Pursue Fair Scheduling Legislation
Reps. DeLauro, Schakowsky, Sen. Warren plan to introduce fair scheduling legislation this fall
WASHINGTON
In a roundtable discussion today with retail workers, sociologists and policy advocates, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) announced her intention to introduce the Schedules that Work Act to provide predictable work hours for hourly employees in low-wage industries. Representative DeLauro and Senator Elizabeth Warren will jointly reintroduce the bill in the coming weeks.
"The biggest economic challenge of our time is that people are working in jobs that do not pay them enough to keep up with the rising costs of healthcare, child care, housing, and education," said Congresswoman DeLauro. "That problem is compounded when working people do not have a voice in their schedules, which not only impacts them, but also their families. That is why I will be reintroducing the Schedules That Work Act with Senator Warren. Working people deserve to have dignity in their work and the ability to plan their lives, and our legislation will ensure that they do."
The discussion, hosted by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, the Center for Popular Democracy, United for Respect and the National Women's Law Center, addressed a new report from University of California researchers Daniel Schneider and Kristen Harknett documenting how widespread unstable work hours are in the service sector, and the severe impact of this instability on U.S. workers and their families. In their survey, of 30,000 retail and food service workers at 120 of the largest U.S. retail and food service companies, they found significant negative impacts of unpredictable schedules across a worker's life and family. The survey was first reported in The New York Times.
According to the report, having an unpredictable work schedule:
- Raises the likelihood that workers will experience material hardship, including food and housing insecurity;
- Destabilizes children's routines and care arrangements, heightening children's anxiety and behavioral challenges and forcing parents to rely on inconsistent and low-quality child care;
- Increases the likelihood a worker will quit their job; and
- Perpetuates racial inequality: workers of color, particularly women of color, experience more unstable work hours than their white coworkers at the same employer.
In the course of the roundtable conversation, workers shared how their experiences with unstable schedules impacted their families and other areas of their lives.
"At Big Lots, my work schedule wasn't made available to me until the day before our workweek began. It made it so stressful and difficult to plan ahead for the week, because I'm the sole provider for my children and my mom," said Brandy Powell, United for Respect leader and mother who works retail in California. "I deserve a say in when I work, and I deserve advance notice when I'm expected to work. When I told Big Lots I wouldn't be available because my kids had doctor's visits, they ignored my shift requests and called me into work. I was forced to quit my job after 11 months because it was too much stress for me and my family."
The workers were joined by representatives from the National Women's Law Center, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and One Pennsylvania.
"When so many women don't have enough notice of their schedules to plan their lives and care for their kids, when they don't have enough hours to pay for rent and groceries and child care, it's no wonder that we're still seeing gender wage gaps--gaps that are especially wide for women of color and women who are moms, and for moms who are women of color most of all," said Fatima Goss Graves, President and CEO of the National Women's Law Center. "That's why we need the Schedules That Work Act and the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights."
The Schedules that Work Act would require employers in the retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality and warehouse sectors to provide two weeks' advance notice of work schedules and compensate workers for employer-initiated shift changes. The bill would also protect workers' right to input into work schedules and at least eleven hours of nightly rest between work shifts. The forthcoming Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights, to be introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09), will allow part-time hourly workers to pick up additional hours before the employer can hire new staff, along with other protections for part-time workers--who typically experience lower pay and access to benefits, as well as greater scheduling instability, than their full-time counterparts.
States and cities are also moving forward with introducing legislation to guarantee a fair workweek. Last year, Philadelphia and Chicago became the latest cities to pass fair scheduling legislation. Similar measures are already law in Oregon, Seattle, WA; Emeryville, CA; San Francisco, CA; and New York, NY.
Los Angeles, Washington state, and New Jersey are considering similar bills during their upcoming legislative sessions.
"Workers from New York to Oregon and Los Angeles to Chicago have been standing up to demand a Fair Workweek so that they and their families can thrive," said Rachel Deutsch with the Center for Popular Democracy's Fair Workweek Initiative. "We hope members of Congress will pass the Schedules That Work Act and Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights to ensure that millions of workers can rely on predictable and stable hours."
In June, the Los Angeles City Council directed the City Attorney to draft a fair workweek ordinance, and workers with UFCW local 770, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, and other community groups urged the council to act quickly during a hearing on October 15. In Washington, a coalition led by UFCW Local 21 and Working Washington is backing policy championed by state senator Rebecca Saldana and representative Nicole Macri. On October 16, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg announced her intention to introduce fair workweek legislation at a press conference with Make the Road New Jersey, United for Respect, Unite Here, SEIU, NJ Citizen Action, and other allies.
The Center for Popular Democracy works to create equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy in partnership with high-impact base-building organizations, organizing alliances, and progressive unions. CPD strengthens our collective capacity to envision and win an innovative pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.
(347) 985-2220LATEST NEWS
Watch 60 Minutes 'Inside CECOT' Segment Blocked by CBS News Chief Bari Weiss
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance."
Dec 22, 2025
A social media user on Monday shared at least part of a "60 Minutes" segment about a prison in El Salvador—where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants—after CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss controversially blocked its release.
"Canadians, behold! (And Americans on a VPN.) The canceled '60 Minutes' story has appeared on the Global TV app—almost certainly by accident," Jason Paris wrote on Bluesky, sharing a link to download a nearly 14-minute video of the segment, which has since been uploaded here.
The segment is titled "Inside CECOT," the Spanish abbreviation for El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center.
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance," Paris added. Corus Entertainment owns Global TV. Paramount and Skydance merged earlier this year, after winning approval from the Trump administration. Weiss, a right-wing pundit, was then appointed to her position.
In a leaked email, "60 Minutes" correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote that "Bari Weiss spiked our story," and "in my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Stop Permitting Talks Over Trump's 'Reckless and Vindictive Assault' on Wind Power
"By sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform," said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich.
Dec 22, 2025
The top Democrats on a pair of key US Senate panels ended negotiations to reform the federal permitting process for energy projects in response to the Trump administration's Monday attack on five offshore wind projects along the East Coast.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM) began their joint statement by thanking the panels' respective chairs, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), "for their good-faith efforts to negotiate a permitting reform bill that would have lowered electricity prices for all Americans."
"There was a deal to be had that would have taken politics out of permitting, made the process faster and more efficient, and streamlined grid infrastructure improvements nationwide," the Democrats said. "But any deal would have to be administered by the Trump administration. Its reckless and vindictive assault on wind energy doesn't just undermine one of our cheapest, cleanest power sources, it wrecks the trust needed with the executive branch for bipartisan permitting reform."
Earlier Monday, the US Department of the Interior halted Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind off New York, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts, citing radar interference concerns.
Governors and members of Congress from impacted states, including Whitehouse and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), condemned the announcement, with Whitehouse pointing to a recent legal battle over the project that would help power Rhode Island.
"It's hard to see the difference between these new alleged radar-related national security concerns and the radar-related national security allegations the Trump administration lost in court, a position so weak that they declined to appeal their defeat," he said.
This looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.
— Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (@whitehouse.senate.gov) December 22, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Later, he and Heinrich said that "by sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform. It will own the higher electricity prices, increasingly decrepit infrastructure, and loss of competitiveness that result from its reckless policies."
"The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume," they continued. "There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law."
Reporting on Whitehouse and Heinrich's decision, the Hill reached out to Capito and Lee's offices, as well as the Interior Department, whose spokesperson, Alyse Sharpe, "declined to comment beyond the administration's press release, which claimed the leases were being suspended for national security reasons."
Lee responded on social media with a gif:
Although the GOP has majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans don't have enough senators to get most bills to a final vote without Democratic support.
The Democratic senators' Monday move was expected among observers of the permitting reform debate, such as Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman, who wrote before their statement came out that "Democrats in Congress are almost certainly going to take this action into permitting reform talks... after squabbling over offshore wind nearly derailed a House bill revising the National Environmental Policy Act last week."
That bill, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was pilloried by green groups after its bipartisan passage. It's one of four related pieces of legislation that the House advanced last week. The others are the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, Power Plant Reliability Act, and Reliable Power Act.
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, blasted all four bills as "blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries" that would do "nothing to help American families facing staggering energy costs and an escalating climate crisis."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," he argued. "The best policy response would be to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future.
Instead, Arkush said, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "are shamefully pushing legislation that would only exacerbate the energy affordability crisis and further entrench the dirty, dangerous, and unaffordable energy of the past."
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Crime, Murder, or Both? Dems Demand DOJ Probe Into Hegseth Order to Kill Shipwrecked Sailors
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," wrote Reps. Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu. "Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder."
Dec 22, 2025
Making clear that the Trump administration's "entire Caribbean operation," which has killed more than 100 people in boats that the US military has bombed, "appears to be unlawful," two Democrats on a powerful House committee on Monday called on the Department of Justice to investigate one particular attack that's garnered accusations of a war crime—or murder.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi four weeks after it was reported that in the military's first strike on a boat on September 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered service members to "kill everybody"—prompting a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
A retired general, United Nations experts, and former top military legal advisers are among those who have warned that Hegseth and the service members directly involved in the strike—as well as the other attacks on more than two dozen boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—may be liable for war crimes or murder.
Raskin and Lieu raised that concern directly to Bondi, writing: "Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck. Such conduct would trigger criminal liability under the War Crimes Act if the administration claims it is engaged in armed conflict, or under the federal murder statute if no such conflict exists."
The administration has insisted it is attacking the boats as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela, and has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels there, though international and domestic intelligence agencies have not identified the country as a significant source any drugs that flow into the US. As President Donald Trump has ordered the boat strikes, the administration has also been escalating tensions with Venezuela by seizing oil tankers, claiming to close its airspace, and demanding that President Nicolás Maduro leave power.
Critics from both sides of the aisle in Congress have questioned the claim that the bombed boats were a threat to the US, and Raskin and Lieu noted that the vessel attacked on September 2 in particular appeared to pose no threat, as it was apparently headed to Suriname, "not the United States, at the time it was destroyed."
"Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck."
"Congress has never authorized military force against Venezuela; a boat moving towards Suriname does not pose a clear and present danger to the United States; and the classified legal memoranda the Trump administration has offered us to justify the attacks are entirely unpersuasive," wrote the lawmakers.
Raskin and Lieu emphasized that Hegseth's explanations of the September 2 strike in particular have been "shifting and contradictory."
"Secretary Hegseth has variously claimed that he missed the details of the September 2 strike because of the 'fog of war,' and that he actually left the room before any explicit order was given to kill the survivors," they wrote. "Later reporting suggests that he gave a general order to kill all passengers aboard ahead of the strike but delegated the specific order to kill survivors to a subordinate."
The facts that are known about the strike, as well as Hegseth's muddled claims, warrant a DOJ investigation, the Democrats suggested.
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," they wrote. "Similarly, carrying out such an order also constitutes a war crime, and the Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly provides that 'acting pursuant to orders' is no defense 'if the accused knew the orders to be unlawful.' Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder. The federal criminal code makes it a felony to commit murder within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' which is defined to include the 'high seas.' It is also a federal crime to conspire to commit murder."
Raskin and Lieu also emphasized that two memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "do not—and cannot—provide any legal protection for the secretary’s conduct."
A 2010 OLC memo said the federal murder statute does not apply "when the target of a military strike is an enemy combatant in a congressionally authorized armed conflict," they noted. "In stark contrast, in the case of the Venezuelan boats, Congress has not authorized military force of any kind."
A new classified memo also suggested that “personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution," and claimed that "the president’s inherent constitutional authority in an undeclared 'armed conflict' will shield the entire chain of command from criminal liability."
The Democrats wrote, "Experts in criminal law, constitutional law, and the law of armed conflict find this sweeping, unsubstantiated claim implausible, at best."
They also noted that even the author of the George W. Bush administration's infamous "Torture Memo," conservative legal scholar John Woo, has said Hegseth's order on September 2 was clearly against the law.
"Attorney General Bondi, even those who condoned and defended torture in the name of America are saying that the Trump administration has violated both federal law and the law of war," wrote Raskin and Lieu. "We urge you to do your duty as this country’s chief law enforcement officer to investigate the secretary’s apparent and serious violations of federal criminal law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


