Lisa's story: My name is Lisa Austin and I work in Apple Valley, MN at Walmart #2642. On December 28, 2014 I was disciplined for staying home to take care of my seven-month-old child while my husband was away training with the National Guard.* The training was on the weekend of December 7, 2014. Per Walmart policy, I requested the days off close to two months in advance but was still written up for the days missed. Now I am close to being terminated and am afraid I will lose my job if I have to miss work if Walmart doesn’t approve future dates that my husband is away. The store manager told me that “my absence was inexcusable and everyone has kids.” I was told that I cannot have another absence until June 14, 2015. Military families sacrifice on a daily basis when their spouse is deployed or away from their loved ones. Should a Military spouse sacrifice her child or her job for just needing a day off to care for their baby? Walmart can help associates like Lisa and show its respect for military families by amending its leave policy today. Please join us in showing your support by signing this petition for a national policy that helps all our military families who work at Walmart across the country. *Since I started working at Walmart in October 2014, I had not been working there long enough to qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: UFCW and OUR Walmart have the purpose of helping Wal-Mart employees as individuals or groups in their dealings with Wal-Mart over labor rights and standards and their efforts to have Wal-Mart publically commit to adhering to labor rights and standards. UFCW and OUR Walmart have no intent to have Walmart recognize or bargain with UFCW or OUR Walmart as the representative of Walmart employees.

Over the course of 2014, Starbucks Coffee was in the news on a regular basis. Whether it was a partner (aka, a Starbucks employee) that was struggling with her wages and hours, or a strangely uneven HBO Starbucks-produced tribute to America’s veterans, there’s been no shortage of media attention thrown the way of the coffee siren. Most notably Starbucks turned heads by changing its tattoo policy, finally allowing its employees the ability to show off their ink without having to cover them all day, every day. Much rejoicing was heard, it was an exciting time for many employees as most believed the archaic policy would never move. It did. Further steps were announced by Starbucks corporate. Pay would be changing. In the middle of the hype over the tattoo policy changes, and some calling for higher wages, Starbucks took the lead announcing that pay would increase for a large portion of its US employees. Excitement began to boil again. At a time in US history when stagnant worker wages are at an all time high, and protests are happening from coast to coast, the powers that be at Starbucks headquarters realized [and wisely so] that they had to move first. Move they did. At the end of January, news began to trickle out about these wages. Many Starbucks partners believed and hoped that wages would be raised significantly. Some defended the current wages as being enough. Reading through unofficial Starbucks partner Facebook pages, it became evident that for very few, the initial wage would be substantial, but for partners that have been employed for 1-3 years, they would be put at the new wage base level [which is different per state, per region]. Much of the work many partners put in for their wages would be wiped clean, even starting partners would be paid the same as they would, a gross inequality in a growing number of voices as seen through social media. THE BREAK DOWN (How it used to work) Typically, Starbucks employees were eligible for raises every six months, something no other company was doing up until that point. This system worked. What wasn't working were starting wages and wage caps. Starbucks as a company, like many other companies, falls far behind in paying their workers a livable wage. Many of its employees, struggle to pay their bills week to week. Many live with family or in roommate situations. (How it works now) Now, Starbucks baristas and shift supervisors are eligible for one raise a year, slowing down their rate of pay. The starting wages being reported are a good beginning for the multi-billion dollar company, but in their decision making process, they have failed to account for what will probably amount to tens of thousands of their employees who are now placed at the beginning of the wage system, just to get one raise a year. Tempers are hot. In the scheme of things, Starbucks gets most things right. They offer their employees health benefits, free drinks, a pound of coffee a week, stock options, and a competitive 401k among other things. Most American businesses should be looking at Starbucks as an example of how you treat the people who are actually responsible for the customer connection which brings in the record earnings every quarter. The new wage benefits are promising, a step in the right direction. It would be wise for the decision makers on a corporate level to not throw their mid-term or mid-tenure employees under the bus when premiering new wages. There was a lot of hype around the wage increase, but as you would see if you joined certain Starbucks barista social media groups, a bill of goods was sold and hyped that actually ended up slowing the pace of wage earning, and starting off experienced workers as if they were new. Starbucks now has a worker relations mess on their hands. This petition is to Starbucks for a fair wage increase for partners tenured one year or more. You do not have to be a barista to sign this petition. Although, if you are, I recommend that you share this with your fellow baristas, family and friends. You can share this petition by copying and pasting the link below. http://www.coworker.org/p/fairwageincrease A special thanks to Jill Deblasio!

The timing of Kip’s termination on December 2nd is no accident. It came in the midst of a national week of action for “$15 and a Union,” and just as three different union drives at Delta, and their subcontractor AirServ, kick into high gear. Over 200 rallied on December 5th at MSP Airport, blocking traffic, to demand $15 and a Union and that Delta re-hire Kip. Delta thinks firing Kip, a leading 15 Now and union activist, will silence other airport workers from standing up for their rights. They couldn’t be more wrong. With your support, and the mobilization of the wider labor movement, Delta’s blatantly illegal and unjust actions will only deepen workers’ resolve to fight for $15/hour and union rights. We call on Delta and the Metropolitan Airport Commission, which governs operations at MSP Airport, to immediately reinstate Kip Hedges and to make clear that these intimidation tactics will not continue. We stand in solidarity with Kip and with all workers fighting for $15 and a union!

We’re fighting for a fair deal for all Smiths Chips workers in Tingalpa, Queensland, especially the casual workers who get paid less than me and other permanent workers. We think all workers should be treated equally and paid equally for the work that they do. That's why we are all sitting-in the lunchroom until we get equality and respect. #OccupyTingalpa Brett Thomas, Smiths worker and union delegate.

Many federal government employees dedicate their careers to advancing important social objectives such as protecting the environment, enforcing labor standards, encouraging responsible corporate behavior and advancing civil rights at home or human rights abroad. I have over 20 years with the federal government in various jobs and am now working at the Department of State. I would like to be sure that my retirement funds are invested in companies that reflect the values that are important to me. Nevertheless, unlike many state and local government workers, federal employees do not have the opportunity to invest their retirement monies in mutual funds that support these same objectives.   More than one out of every nine dollars in the United States– or $3.74 trillion - is invested according to sustainable and responsible investment (SRI) strategies. It's one of the fastest growing categories of investment. These mutual funds allow many employees across the country to ensure that their investments reflect their values on a broad range of issues from climate change and other environmental risks to human rights, decent workplaces, consumer protection, diversity and product safety.  While federal employees do not currently have the option to participate in this kind of investment for their retirement funds, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) has recently authorized the agency managing the Thrift Savings Plan to explore the creation of a "mutual fund window," which would allow TSP investors options to invest in mutual funds beyond those limited ones currently available through the TSP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/18/tsp-moves-toward-opening-investment-window/. It is important to demonstrate to the TSP there there is substantial interest among TSP investors (both current and past federal employees) to provide socially responsible options if and when this window is created. Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/people/89228431@N06/

Having our members show their support for the employees of Capital Bikeshare is key; our main leverage is member relations - namely, you all. Having members sign the petition and show that they endorse the right of CaBi workers to unionize is huge. Please, tell Alta/REQX to voluntarily recognize the union we have formed with TWU Local 100 and to drop the motion to clarify, that is, allow everyone who wants to be in the Union a seat at the table. Thank you everyone to has signed the petition. However, it appears our work has just begun. At the NLRB hearing Jackson-Lewis successfully pushed our petition to unionize out. We are starting back from ground zero. We still need your support - letting them know that we, the public, those who use the bikes stand for workers rights will go a long way in our struggle. Thank You.

Whole Foods recently launched a campaign with the tagline "Values Matter". But when most of us need 2 or 3 jobs just to pay the rent and take care of our families, we are left wondering which values truly matter. We see the company opening up a new store almost every month, while we are told they can't afford to give us a full 40-hour week. Every year we are given the "opportunity" to vote on how to make deeper cuts to our health plan. We are at the point now where everyone knows getting sick means going into debt. We know it doesn’t have to be this way, that’s why we’ve come together to tell Whole Foods Market - We are Hungry for Better Lives!

Uber initially marketed its transportation service as a seamless and cashless experience where the tip was included in the fare calculation. In fact, the fare calculation was, and is simply based upon time, distance, tolls, and surge charge. Notably absent is a gratuity. Eventually, Uber moved away from saying that the “tip is included in the fare” to a more ambiguous “there is no need to tip.” Based upon Uber’s global marketing, many Uber customers falsely believe that the Uber fare includes an automatic tip. While UberTaxi does include an automatic tip, the UberX, UberXL, UberPlus, UberBlack, and UberSUV platforms do NOT include any gratuity at all. Uber is fully aware of the confusion that exists in the marketplace regarding the tips. In fact, Uber’s present independent contractor agreement advises drivers that there is “no tipping.” But then, in the same sentence, advises drivers that Uber may, through advertising and marketing, communicate to customers that “tipping” is “’included in the Service Fee paid by the User.” In a recent commutation to an Uber customer, however, the Company clarified the tip issue by saying: “There’s no function that will allow riders to tip their drivers for vehicle options other than UberTaxi. That means for uberX, uberBlack, and the rest of the Uber services, you can’t leave a tip. And yes, the fare is simply a calculation of the base fare, time, distance, tolls, and surge rate.” Uber passengers deserve to know the truth and to have the option to tip within the app if they choose. In the past year, Uber has drastically reduced its fares, while at the same time increasing the commission it takes from each trip. For example, in December 2013, in Los Angeles, the uberX fare was $2.40 per mile, $0.60 per minute, with a base fare of $4.00. Of that fare, Uber would take a 5% commission. Today, an uberX driver will make $1.10 per mile, $0.21 per minute, with a base fare of $0.80. Of that reduced fare, Uber now takes a 25% commission. This means many of Uber drivers are taking home a lot less for our work than we used to, and we have to increase our hours behind the wheel by up to 50% in order to make up for the reduction in fares, and Uber's increased commission. Allowing a way for users to provide tips to drivers would make a huge difference to drivers and the families for which many of them are providing. It would also be a boost for driver morale and another incentive to great service. It shouldn’t be hard for Uber -- a tech company -- to create options within the app to allow customers to automatically tip their drivers. In fact, they are already doing it -- for uberTaxi, one of Uber’s services, users can request a ride from a regular cab through the app, and a default 20% tip is included in the fare (and app users can adjust that percentage online). If it can be done for uberTaxi, surely an innovative tech company like Uber could develop a solution for users to provide tips for drivers across all of its different services -- just like its competitor Lyft offers. Placing an automatic tip within the Uber app would be a win for both customers and drivers alike. Please join CADA in asking Uber to update its technology by adding a 20% default tip to ALL Uber fares. Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/people/afagen/

With the increasing focus on income inequality in the United States, Wells Fargo has an opportunity to be at the forefront of helping to reduce this disparity by setting a higher bar. I believe Wells Fargo could demonstrate to other large corporations that it is very possible to maintain a profitable company that not only looks out for its consumers and shareholders, but its employees as well. This year, Wells Fargo in its second quarter alone had a net income of $5.7 billion, and total revenue of $21.1 billion. These are very impressive numbers and it’s obvious that Wells Fargo is one of the most profitable company in the nation right now. Last year, Wells Fargo’s CEO, John Stumpf, pulled in over $19 million, more than most of the employees will see in our lifetimes. Meanwhile, the vast majority of employees barely make enough to live comfortably on their own. So, why not take some of this and distribute it to the rest of the employees? Sure, the company provides (while not great), some pretty good benefits, as well as discretionary profit sharing for those who partake in our 401k program. While the benefits are nice, the profit sharing through the 401k only goes to make the company itself and its shareholders more profitable rather than boost the income of the thousands of us here every day making this company the prestigious powerhouse that it is. My estimate is that Wells Fargo has roughly around 300,000 employees. My proposal is take $3 billion dollars, just a small fraction of what Wells Fargo pulls in annually, and raise every employee’s annual salary by $10,000. This equates to an hourly raise of about $4.71 per hour. Think, as well, of the positive publicity in a time of extreme consumer skepticism towards banks. By doing this, Wells Fargo will not only help to make its people -- its family -- more happy, productive, and financially stable, it will also show the rest of the United States, if not the world that, that big corporations can have a heart other than philanthropic endeavors. Each and every one of us plays an integral part in the success of this company. It is time that we ask to be rightfully compensated for the hard work that we accomplish, and for the great part we all have played in the success of this company. There are many of us out there who come to work every day and give it our all, yet, we struggle to make ends meet while our peers in upper management and company executives reap the majority of the rewards. One of our lowest scored TMCS questions is that our opinions matter. Well they do! While the voice of one person in a world as large as ours may seem only like a whisper, the combined voices of each and all of us can move mountains! Photo Credit: https://www.flickr.com/people/andrewbain. The license to this image can be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

CEO Nadella wrote employees this week: "Without a doubt I wholeheartedly support programs at Microsoft and in the industry that bring more women into technology and close the pay gap. I believe men and women should get equal pay for equal work." As a woman working in the tech industry, equal pay for equal work is important to me too. But from my experience in San Francisco, in many cases in our industry -- as in others -- women are still paid less than our male colleagues. Microsoft's latest publicly available data on workforce diversity shows that men occupy 82.7% of all leadership positions inside the company. With such lopsided representation in leadership, one wonders how Microsoft holds up on pay equity. Do women at Microsoft earn the same as their male counterparts? Are employees actually earning equal pay for equal work? The Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2013 shows that women in the tech industry still earn substantially less than their male counterparts. It's everyone's job to close the gender pay gap -- including Microsoft -- but we can't do it without the data. Microsoft is in a position to lead the industry on this issue. Releasing diversity numbers is not enough -- gender equity includes your paycheck. Employees, shareholders and the public have a right to know whether Microsoft pays women and men equal pay for equal work. Let's disclose the pay ratios across the company -- and if there is a pay discrepancy, let's get to work fixing it! Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/people/bagogames/ License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

This is important because it's fair. Starbucks is making record profits. Earnings reports has profits the highest they have ever been (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexadavis/2014/07/24/starbucks-sizzling-profits-get-cool-reception/) In years past, employees would be granted a personal day every quarter as well as sick time being available. After the financial crisis, personal and sick days went away, never to return. If partners get sick, they have to use their precious vacation time to make up the difference. The speed at which employees accrue vacation time was also cut down, so it takes longer to make enough to cover one day. Starbucks should and can do better. Starbucks Baristas operate their stores. It's non management that is responsible for creating that coveted third place environment (the space between home and work) that's so essential and so important to our loyal and wonderful customers. The larger percentage of Starbucks employees struggle to live from week to week. As amazing as the entire benefits package is, free coffee doesn't pay the bills. Free stock won't put gas in our car. Free tuition doesn't ensure a quality of life where many of us scrape by from week to week, just to afford food and gas.

Nissan is the most productive automaker in North America. However, that productivity comes at a price. Only a fraction of Nissan's employees are directly hired and few earn the top pay rate. Most work for agencies like Yates, Onin or Calsonic - have few paid days off, and must deal with ever increasing line speeds. Nissan workers want to be directly hired, earn the top pay rate after a reasonable amount of time, and work at reasonable line speeds.