Sanitation workers have held numerous strikes demanding hazard pay, frequently linking their fight to movements like Black Lives Matter. But the issue remains a contentious one for the waste industry. Sanitation workers have held numerous strikes demanding hazard pay, frequently linking their fight to movements like Black Lives Matter. But the issue remains a contentious one for the waste industry.

Cole Rosengren report for Waste Dive

Since early May, sanitation workers employed by a New Orleans city subcontractor have been on strike in an effort to win pandemic hazard pay and other changes. Their action comes at a time when frontline employees in sectors across the country say they are being exposed to heightened risks that justify increased wages.

Frontline waste industry employees can earn high wages in some instances, but rates differ for a variety of reasons depending on the employer or location. That has sparked growing interest in supplemental pay in light of newly challenging conditions. Absent regulatory drivers, which have largely not come to fruition, the decision to pay more rests with employers and it has so far not been the norm. Now, as the pandemic’s risks appear to be rising across the country and conversations about systemic racism have come to the forefront, some believe the debate about hazard pay is likely to mount.

Don’t miss stories like this Click for EP Blog updates

The striking New Orleans “hoppers,” who jump off and on to trucks collecting waste, began their action on May 5. They are employees of PeopleReady, a subcontractor of Metro Services Group (previously called Metro Disposal), which services part of New Orleans under contract. Daytriàn Mariell Wilken, a spokesperson for the striking workers, told Waste Dive the hoppers want more personal protective equipment (PPE), upgrades to the trucks they use, a minimum wage of $15 an hour, and $150 per week in hazard pay.

When the strike began, Metro briefly employed incarcerated workers from the Livingston Parish’s Transitional Work Program, who spent several days on the job. LaTonya Norton, press secretary for New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, said “a number of workers” returned to their jobs after that. She said the city confirmed with Metro that workers are receiving proper PPE and has requested records to ensure subcontractees are receiving proper pay.

A spokesperson for PeopleReady said via email that employees working with Metro have been provided with full PPE, including gloves, masks, and eye protection. The company also said no striking employees have been fired and there are no intentions to fire them in the future. “The fact that a business continues to operate with replacement workers does not mean that striking employees have been fired,” said the spokesperson. “When faced with a strike, it is a company’s lawful right to continue to operate the business.”

Virginia Miller, spokesperson for Metro, said her company has been communicating with the subcontractees through New Orleans City Council President Jason Williams, which Wilken confirmed. Williams’ office did not respond to a request for comment, but Miller said the striking workers have not asked for Metro itself to institute hazard pay. The company has said it supports federal action on hazard pay for workers more broadly.

“Thus far, while Metro is still hopeful that a dialogue can occur, there has been no response,” said Miller.

Read the full story

Like this? Click to receive free EP Blog updates

Climate change may be having its day in court

By Matthew Green, Valerie Volcovici, Emma Farge Reuters

With the slow pace of international climate negotiations, lawyers from Switzerland to San Francisco are increasingly filing lawsuits demanding action.

And they are getting creative — using new legal arguments to challenge companies and governments before a judge.

Two decades ago, only a handful of climate-related lawsuits had ever been filed worldwide. Today, that number is 1,600, including 1,200 lawsuits in the United States alone, according to data reported Friday by the London School of Economics.

“The courts are an increasingly important place for addressing the problem of climate change,” said Hari Osofsky, the dean of Penn State Law and the School of International Affairs.

Already, climate campaigners are seeing glimmers of success.

In the Netherlands in December, the country’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling in favour of the Urgenda campaign group’s demand that the Dutch government move faster to cut carbon emissions.

And in January, a judge in Switzerland acquitted a dozen climate protesters from trespassing charges, filed after the group staged a tennis match within a branch of Credit Suisse in 2018 to draw attention to the bank’s fossil fuel loans. Defence lawyers had argued that the protesters’ actions were necessitated by the “imminent danger” posed by climate change. The ruling was met in court with a standing ovation.

“It was an exceptional ruling,” one of the defence lawyers, Aline Bonard, told Reuters. Given that the protesters admitted to trespassing, “the infraction is undeniable.”

But cases like these suggest a shift in how people are understanding the role of the judiciary in mediating cases related to the warming climate. Now, “there is bound to be a new wave of legal proceedings using a similar line of argument,” Bonard said.

NEW LEGAL TACTICS

As rulings that compel governments to cut emissions remain rare, lawyers still see promise in targeting large, polluting companies. Such cases in the past tended to accuse coal-fired power stations or government of failing to limit emissions. Cases now are being fought on arguments such as consumer protections and human rights.

This shift been especially pronounced in the United States, where more than a dozen cases filed by states, cities and other parties are challenging the fossil fuel industry for its role in causing climate change and not informing the public of its harms. 

Read the full story

We’re always looking for information that might benefit our readers. If you come across something that cries out to be shared, please send it to editor@enviropolitics.com  If we agree, you’ll see it here soon.   

By Brent Johnson  and Len Melisurgo NJ.com

New Jersey on Wednesday reported 53 new deaths attributed to the coronavirus and 335 new positive tests, while the rate of transmission — a statistic that has state officials worried of late — rose slightly again.

The new numbers come as Gov. Phil Murphy announced the state will now require people to wear masks outdoors in public when they can’t practice social distancing.

Murphy also announced that restaurants and bars in the Garden State that are able to open 50% of their wall space can allow indoor dining, saying the air flow is better there than in closed spaces.

New Jersey has now reported 15,423 known deaths related to COVID-19 — 13,476 lab-confirmed and 1,947 probable — with 174,039 known cases in the little more than four months since the the state’s first case was announced March 4.

Don’t miss stories like this Click for EP Blog updates

This comes as the U.S. has surpassed 3 million cases, with about 1 million coming in the last 28 days as numerous states have seen a surge in new positive tests.

New Jersey — once a coronavirus hotspot — has seen its number of daily new cases and deaths, as well as hospitalizations, fall significantly since peaking in April and remain relatively steady in recent days.

But officials are concerned the Garden State’s transmission rate recently jumped past the critical mark of 1 after falling below it for 10 weeks. That means, on average, every newly infected resident is now passing COVID-19 to at least one other person.

Officials said Wednesday the rate of transmission had climbed from 1.05 to 1.10.

“This is, again, why we are taking the steps today to require everyone to wear masks and face coverings when outside,” Murphy said during his latest coronavirus briefing in Trenton. “We have to have both a lower daily positivity and a rate below one. This is not either/or, this is and/both. It’s the only way we can meaningfully slow the rate of spread of COVID-19 to save lives and not see our progress backslide.”

Read the full story