Jamie Dimon Confronted By Houston Janitor Over Low Wages

[Swede]

A janitor from Texas confronted JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon after a congressional hearing on Tuesday, asking the finance executive why she can't earn a living wage working in the JPMorgan Chase Tower in Houston.

Once lawmakers from the House Financial Services Committee wrapped up their own questioning of Dimon, Adriana Vasquez got Dimon's attention from across a table in the committee hearing room, according to C-SPAN video (above).

"Despite making billions last year, why do you deny the people cleaning your buildings a living wage?" Vasquez asked, according to her union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/jamie-dimon-jpmorgan-congressional-hearing-janitor_n_1610198.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[rfranklin]

1. Dimon said, "Call my office." Whaddya bet he never answers her call?

I know, I know, it's a sucker bet.

[dkf]

2. JP Morgan doesn't own the building.

[rfranklin]

4. Yes, but if they had any integrity they would demand that the landlord raise wages...

But the landlord has outsourced the cleaning to a contractor because they don't really want to know how those cleaning people are treated or compensated. No vacation, no sick days, no overtime. It's the same modus operandi across the nation. And it's a disgrace.

[dkf]

5. It's a five hour a day job. It's not even full time.

You want vacation for a part time job? Isn't this more appropriately a 2nd job?

[TBF]

8. Conditions are changing quickly -

a few years ago we couldn't have predicted Occupy. People can only take so much and I too hope the 1%'ers are held accountable for their behavior.

[dkf]

11. Nope. Worked 11 hour days for most of my working life.

What I have I saved and earned and grew. Haven't had a day off this year except when my uncle passed away. Been to work with a fever two days in a row. Told my boss I wanted to go home yesterday but he said I had to stay so I did. I'm not allowed to stay home just for a fever.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. This explains why you neglected to understand...

... "I'm not allowed to stay home just for a fever..." is part of bending over and taking it up the ass until the corporation can let you buy some preparation H on your 15 minute break.

See what is wrong here?

[dkf]

15. It's not the corporation. No one else would have said that.

It's just my boss. And I know I could leave but he would be SOL and lost and I can't do that to him and my co workers. I stay out of guilt of the consequences.

So I do feel for this woman for her lack of resources but I wonder if she is making the choices she needs to in order to have a better life. I am a fixer and I still believe that people can do better and I don't see that happening working 5 hours a day as a cleaning person.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. SOMETIMES...

working 5 hours a day as a cleaning person is the only feasible thing one person CAN do.

Are you THAT out of touch with the choices some people have? I don't believe your comment is sincere, but a pathetic excuse for what the labor forces has come to know as "usual"... For what reasons, I'll never know.

[dkf]

21. Then we will all be in with fevers. Seriously.

That's how it's always been. It used to be a lot lot worse in fact. I used to stay til 11pm most nights and come in on Saturdays, now it's only every few weeks I have to stay that late.

And yes I realize I've given up my life for this job. I'm just hoping I can retire someday because I am really tired and I need a vacation. Other people have the luxury of leisure time. I don't have that...just the security of knowing I won't be starving unless the entire system collapses.

[cyberswede]

46. I wonder if you're making the choices you need to in order to have a better life...

[Zalatix]

20. Going to work with a fever, eh? Allow me to explain why you're doing more harm than good.

I've got five cites to back me up when I say that you are endangering your employer's business and your coworkers.

Anyone got cites that show I'm wrong?

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/presenteeism.htm

In 2004, the Harvard Business Review reported on a study conducted by researchers at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston. The study assessed the impact of twenty-eight medical conditions on workers' productivity at Lockheed Martin Corp. The findings showed that employees who came to work sick that year -- with ailments such as allergies, headaches, lower-back pain, arthritis, colds and the flu -- set the company back about $34 million. Allergies and sinus trouble led the pack with the highest losses to the company of $1.8 million.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947637/

Presenteeism: A Public Health Hazard

"Presenteeism" occurs when an employee goes to work despite a medical illness that will prevent him or her from fully functioning at work. This problem has been well studied in the business and social science literature, and carries increased importance in the health care setting due to the risk of infectious disease transmission in vulnerable patient populations. In this manuscript, we discuss an outbreak of viral gastroenteritis in a long-term care facility and the role presenteeism played in disease transmission and extension of the outbreak. We use existing literature to point out the hazards of presenteeism in the health care sector. We will also discuss factors that may be involved in the decision to work while ill and propose policy changes that may reduce the incidence of presenteeism in health care organizations.

.....

On January 19, 2005 (day 1), three nursing home residents and one staff member at a 100-bed, two-floor urban facility developed symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (Fig. 1). General infection control measures were reinforced, including hand hygiene education for nursing home residents and staff, contact isolation for symptomatic residents, and new surface disinfection procedures. On days 2 and 3 of the outbreak, seven more residents developed similar symptoms, as well as four additional staff. Two of these staff members reported diarrhea after arriving at work and were asked to go home after discussions with the infection control team. At this point, the public health department was notified and more restrictive measures were instituted, including closure of the dining room, suspension of group activities and outings, limitation of visitors, volunteers, and trainees, rescheduling of elective surgery and non-urgent clinic appointments, and discontinuation of new admissions. Staffing strategies were also temporarily changed so that nursing staff did not float in or out of the unit. As per policy, supervisors were instructed to refer employees with signs or symptoms of an infectious illness to Employee Health for diagnosis and determination of suitability to continue work. However, no daily systematic screening process took place to identify ill staff members at the start of their shift.

Over the course of the next 10 days, 23 residents and 18 staff developed symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea...

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040423/presenteeism-employees-employers

April 23, 2004 -- Employees who come to work even when they're aren't feeling well may end up costing companies more in lost productivity than their employers pay for sick days and other medical and disability benefits.

A new study shows that work slowdowns caused by illness on the job, known as "presenteeism," may account for up to 60% of employer health costs. Researchers say the findings suggest that companies may need to take another look at their health care spending.

"In this day and age where employers are hesitant to hire because of skyrocketing medical care costs, it's important to broaden the view of health costs beyond the cost of patient care," says researcher Ron Goetzel, PhD, of the Cornell University Institute for Health and Productivity Studies, in a news release.

The study showed that for some common conditions, such as allergies and headaches, on-the-job productivity losses may account for more than 80% of the employer's total health care costs.

http://www.jjkeller.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/content_home__article_2012Jan19PassitonComingtoworkwhensickcanpresentbusinessproductivityissues-012012_10151_-1_10551

Pass it on: Coming to work when sick can present business productivity issues

Coughing attacks, sneezing fits, and body aches are enough to make anyone feel miserable — but are they enough to keep a person home from work?

All too often, that’s not the case, and it’s coworkers who suffer. Feverish employees who head into the office because they’re insecure about their job or fear a loss of pay usually end up doing little more than spreading germs.

Employees who drag themselves to work when they’re sick bring “presenteeism” with them. They’re physically present at work, but they negatively impact productivity through reduced personal performance and by passing illness on to colleagues.

January and February are prime times of the year for outbreaks of presenteeism, as those months are typically the peak of the flu season. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people with flu-like illness stay at home until at least 24 hours after the fever is gone, not everyone takes this advice.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090926/Contagious-diseases-more-prevalent-due-to-presenteeism.aspx

Contagious diseases more prevalent due to presenteeism

While employers may celebrate a low absenteeism rate among their employees, there may be a more serious problem if sick employees are coming to work. "Presenteeism," a new term coined for when employees work while unhealthy, may be even worse for employers and for the healthcare system, costing $160 billion annually in lost productivity, according to healthcare market research firm Kalorama Information, in its new report "The Market for Wellness Programs and Their Impact on Pharmaceutical, Diagnostic and Device Product Markets." The report also notes that presenteeism costs are one of many factors driving usage of wellness programs.

"Presenteeism is worse than a high absenteeism rate, for two reasons," said Bruce Carlson, Publisher of Kalorama Information. "Sick employees can spread contagious disease to other employees and multiply productivity loss. And they can make mistakes when they are not at the top of their game."

Indeed, Kalorama estimates that costs due to sick workers going to the office is more than double the cost of the 425 million sick days taken in 2008, an estimated $60 billion in lost productivity. The report notes multiple reasons that workers show up sick -- lack of time to see physicians, avoidance of copays and other medical costs, and loss of income. All of these are driving presenteeism. Also, in a time of economic recession, it is often the case that companies do not have back-ups for critical tasks and this contributes to the problem. Communicating sick day policies and cross-training employees can help to mitigate the trend.

[dkf]

22. I'm sure the firm would rather I stay home.

It's my boss who needs me. He doesn't know how to do a lot of stuff that I do for him so without me he is unproductive. Therefore having me there at 1/2 strength enables him to do his job. Otherwise he is unproductive and that is all he cares about.

On one hand it's a pain, on the other I have great job security.

[Zalatix]

27. Luckily you didn't have something infectious.

People staying at work with a nasty cough could result in people not only getting sick, but also killed.

In short: productivity at what cost? You'd think it would fall to us liberals to ask that question. I guess not. It falls to crazy leftists like me to ask it.

[HiPointDem]

24. lol.

[GeorgeGist]

40. Have a nice day.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

10. ''Trolling trolling trolling keep them trollies trolling trooooolhiiiiide!!!!'' nt

[TBF]

9. Why don't you tell us how many hours a day

you'd like her to work? 30? 40? How much an hour? Maybe $1/hr would be good?

[dkf]

13. 8 hours a day is good.

[TBF]

41. But you realized that this janitor might be working a 2nd job -

that means there is also a first job. I have been looking for articles that have more description of the actual hours worked, and whether these folks hold 2-3 jobs (which I suspect at these rates - Houston has cheaper housing than some but it's still a major city).

So far I've found these descriptions of pay/hours:

"It's a constant fight with the companies to get a pay increase.," Caballero said. "Workers are not asking to be rich. They are simply looking at how to buy food and pay for their rent."

The union janitors, who make $8.35 an hour, are seeking a contract that will bring that to $10 an hour in three years. Union officials say the companies have proposed a contract that would raise hourly pay to $8.85 by 2016.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Janitors-take-to-streets-for-hike-in-wages-3635766.php

The SEIU is trying to win a $10 an hour wage for the janitors at Houston’s tallest office building, most of whom get just four-, five- or six-hour workdays. http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2012/06/20/jp-morgan-houston-janitor-wants-jamie-dimon-to-walk-in-her-shoes/

[xmas74]

17. But shouldn't it be a primary, full time job?

They've cut that job down to the bare bones, just to save a few dollars. Why isn't it full time, with decent wages and benefits?

[Zalatix]

18. You've got to be kidding me, right?

[LeftyMom]

19. Yep, jobs are plentiful and there's no underemployment problem.

I'm sure nobody who works five hours a day wants more work and can't find it.

Thankfully, with full employment and a vibrant economy, nobody has to be chided by trust fund brats for not taking a better job they haven't actually been offered.

[dkf]

23. They aren't plentiful and there is a problem which is why she doesn't have a living wage.

Moreover there is a lot of uncontrolled excess labor, especially in these types of jobs.
There is no possibility of upward pressure on wages with so many unemployed. First things first...more economic activity, then a lower unemployment rate then increasing wages.

[LeftyMom]

25. "uncontrolled excess labor"? Please elaborate.

[dkf]

30. Almost anyone is capable of being a cleaner.

Too big a labor pool with so many willing to take lower wages puts downward pressure, not upwards pressure on wages.

And if your policies or lack of policies grow that labor pool then it's even worse for a livable wage.

There are numerous things that expand the labor pool, legal and illegal immigration, increasing the age of social security and Medicare, the collapse of retirement funds. Add to the population of workers without thought and you will get some perhaps unintended consequences on wages.

[HiPointDem]

26. paying people more = more economic activity.

[dkf]

28. Legislating that sort of thing only makes companies pull back more.

It puts them into a cost equalizing mode instead of a happy economic expansion mode.

I used to think this was the easy way to do things til I realized corporations are stubborn and crafty as hell. They'll find a way to equalize expenses. It's in their nature.

[HiPointDem]

29. baloney. minimum wage is legislated. it has never made companies "pull back more".

[dkf]

31. Those were the good old days before globalization.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's so easy to plug in numbers and move jobs around. It's just a spreadsheet.

[Chan790]

33. That's what tariffs are for.

Free-trade is a dirty word. Its' acolytes should learn to fear the large angry mass that sustains them, like they should learn that their interests in not being put to our anger coincide with protecting our interests to maximize our rightful share of their profits off our labor and the labor of our brothers worldwide.

[dkf]

34. You just said it...we maximize our share of the labor of our brothers worldwide.

That is what sustains our way of life. We have greedy bastards who exploit everyone and we ride on their coattails. Thus the American way of life.

[Chan790]

37. We should be demanding that they pay foreign labor the same wage they would earn here.

It's solidarity and it makes offshoring our jobs a pointless exercise. Either pay Ling Mei the goddamned $19.50/hr she'd earn here or pay the damned tariff until you do...either way, you're not going to be allowed to take one additional dime of profit by exporting jobs to cheap labor markets.

Likewise, the Chinese need to learn to produce a decent car and their auto-workers should demand reasonable pay to assemble them so they can afford to buy more Chinese goods including said-such not-shitty Chinese cars and raise their standard of living and drive their domestic creation of more labor demand and more consumption.

It beats the snot out of race-to-the-bottom-on-wages free-trade policies we have now.

Global solidarity lifts all labor at the expense of all oligarchs. That's why I celebrate May Day.

[dkf]

38. Then the Chinese are out of jobs and back in poverty.

I remember I was admonished to eat all my food because the kids in China were starving.

China is the most successful anti poverty program the world has seen. So in a way they've been used but they have also used us to gain technology and to create a middle class lifestyle. I can't say I begrudge them even if our future is not quite as rosy.

Actually I take that back...they own enough of our treasuries that we can't do much to them.

[HiPointDem]

36. the minimum wage has gone up several times since "globalization".

[2ndAmForComputers]

45. So, no minimum wage would be better?

[Chan790]

32. horseshit.

It's like that old conservative lie about minimum wage laws. The only thing that drives hiring at any cost to the employer whether high or low is labor demand. If you don't need to hire someone, you aren't going to hire even at $0.40/hr. If you need more labor, you'll hire more labor even at $35/hr because you need the labor...you might raise prices to pay for it, but you'll hire because it's necessary to hire. Only labor demand and not labor costs drives hiring...and there is no correlation. Employers don't hire less because the cost of labor goes up...it's never true.

What is true is that they will use periods of low employment to drive down wages unless prevented from doing so by government. It's why I support unionization, fuck the oligarchs! If they refuse to pay a fair wage, make them suffer and destroy their livelihood until they relent. If they refuse to provide benefits, deprive them of the benefit of your labor and harrass the shit out of any client who would support such tyranny until they relent. If they won't relent, provide them with some further motivation to relent. Make them cry out in their need to capitulate simply to restore even their diminishing share.

Which is to say you're 180' off the mark and backwards from reality. They won't equalize expenses, they'll just pay the minimum that we'll let them get away with. It's time we started demanding the maximum we can.

[dkf]

35. If they are forced to increase wages they will take it out in benefits.

You know where the fights are after all, and you envision creating mass outrage to contain it. Except by the time people know about it it's already done, especially benefit related things. Open enrollment is when you find out about the plan. It's already too late to add others.

[2ndAmForComputers]

44. So, you're a supply-sider.

[CreekDog]

39. Most nations with wealth and democracy have pulled it off

In fact, we are growing poorer by reducing benefits, wages and requiring less of employers (or less of government when the employer doesn't provide).

Meanwhile countries in Europe, the wealthiest ones, like in Germany and Scandinavia are providing their people tremendous benefits, basically eliminating poverty, allowing people to work less, educating and caring for their people beyond anything even a socialist in the USA would support...

And their economies? Vibrant, productive, creative...amazing.

The problem with you is that you see other people without and you never consider it a mark against you for what they don't have.

But if there is a god or benevolent power in the universe, and I think there is, the people who have more than the have nots will be judged by what they did for those who have less.

And I think that's pretty much in all religions.

So keep holding onto your money, and keep lecturing poor people and telling them to do without.

It may be a long eternity when you're in their shoes and they are in yours.

Ta ta!

[bongbong]

3. 4 microseconds later ....

... she was fired.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Brave woman!