Business

Obama Tries Again to Get Paid Leave for More Workers

Published

12 years ago

January 15, 2015

President Barack Obama signs a presidential memorandum on paid leave, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2015, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. The presidential memorandum is to direct federal agencies to advance six weeks of paid sick leave that federal workers could use as paid family leave. Workers would have to pay back the sick leave over time. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press

BALTIMORE (AP) — President Barack Obama launched a fresh push Thursday to bring paid sick and family leave to working parents and other private-sector employees as the White House unveiled proposals that could benefit tens of millions of people. Most require action by the Republican-controlled Congress.

“Forty-three million Americans do not get paid sick leave,” Obama said after a lunchtime discussion about juggling work and family with a group of women at a Baltimore cafe that offers paid sick leave to its small workforce. “It’s a pretty astonishing statistic.”

Obama said the issue transcends demographics and geography, but “the good news is that we can really do something about it.”

The White House said Obama will push the issue anew in the State of the Union address he delivers Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress.

Obama wants Congress, states and cities to pass measures to let workers earn up to a week of paid sick time a year. He’ll also ask for more than $2 billion to encourage states to create paid family and medical leave programs.

Obama also will propose that Congress pass legislation giving federal workers an additional six weeks of paid parental leave.

Before traveling to Maryland, he directed federal agencies to advance six weeks of paid sick leave that federal workers could use as paid family leave. The leave would have to be paid back over time.

The White House said details on how Obama would raise the $2 billion will be released next month.

More than 40 million private-sector workers don’t have access to any type of paid sick leave, said White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, meaning their paychecks come up short if they stay home when sick or to care for someone who is.

Women make up about half the workforce and nearly three-fourths of mothers work outside the home, federal statistics show.

Citing the country’s positive economic outlook, Obama said the kind of flexibility provided by paid leave policies “ultimately is going to make our economy stronger.” He said the Baltimore cafe owner has offered above-minimum-wage pay and earned sick leave to her employees since opening in late 2010. That type of investment “pays dividends,” said Obama, who cited reduced employee turnover as one benefit.

The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, opposes the president’s effort.

Spokesman Jack Mozloom said required paid leave would force the association’s members to make corresponding cuts in pay and benefits that would harm the people Obama and the advocates of such policies say they want to help. Most of the association’s members have fewer than 25 employees, he said.

“It ripples through the economy in ways the advocates and the president, I think, sometimes don’t see,” Mozloom said.

Obama wants Congress to send him legislation, sponsored since 2005 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., to allow workers to earn up to seven days of paid sick leave to care for themselves or a sick family member, obtain preventive care or treat domestic violence. Workers would earn an hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours they work. Employers that provide paid sick time would not have to change their policies as long as the time earned can be used for the same purposes.

Some states and cities have adopted similar legislation, and Obama will urge others to follow their lead.

The odds are slim that Congress will send Obama the bill — in part, because it was first introduced nearly a decade ago.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chair of the House committee that oversees workforce issues, said more government isn’t the answer to what’s squeezing working families. He referred to legislation the Republican-controlled chamber passed two years ago to let workers take paid time off for working overtime. The Obama administration threatened to veto the bill, which didn’t advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“The president has shown time and again his only response to the challenges facing working families is to impose more mandates on workplaces,” Kline said. “It should be clear to the president by now his approach isn’t working and the American people deserve better.”

The president will also propose ways to broaden access to paid family and medical leave.

Only California, New Jersey and Rhode Island offer paid family and medical leave. Federal law allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off without losing their job to care for a new child, recover from illness or care for a sick family member.

The White House says most families cannot afford such long stretches without pay. Obama will ask lawmakers for $2.2 billion to reimburse up to five states for three years for a portion of the costs of putting similar programs in place.

Regarding the federal workforce, Obama will propose legislation providing six weeks of paid administrative leave for the birth, adoption or foster placement of a child. Federal workers receive paid sick leave and vacation time, but no paid time off specifically for family or parental leave. Under the proposal, federal workers could use sick time to care for a healthy child after birth or adoption.

___

Superville contributed from Washington.

___

On Twitter, follow Darlene Superville at http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap and Nedra Pickler at http://www.twitter.com/nedrapickler

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Obama Tries Again to Get Paid Leave for More Workers

Don't Miss

Amazon Executive Hopes for Era of Peace with Publishers

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Business

Trader Vic’s Returns to Its Oakland Roots

Trader Vic’s, the internationally recognized brand and birthplace of the original Mai Tai, has officially returned to its roots in Oakland. Originally founded in 1934 on San Pablo Avenue before moving to Emeryville, the hospitality giant has launched Trader Vic’s Outpost at Oakland International Airport’s Terminal 2. The new full-service location offers travelers breakfast, lunch, dinner, and cocktails in a 108-seat space designed to celebrate the city’s status as a top national food destination. Visit the website to read more.

Published

5 days ago

October 19, 2026

Post News Group

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee cuts the ribbon at the official opening of Trader Vic’s Outpost and Plum Market at Oakland International Airport. She is assisted by U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon as Port of Oakland Board President Stephanie Dominguez Walton, left, and representatives from Trader Vic's, Plum Market, look on. Photo courtesy of the mayor’s office.

By Special to The Post

Oakland has always been a city of innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, and world-class hospitality. Trader Vic’s—the birthplace of the original Mai Tai – first opened in Oakland back in 1934 on San Pablo Avenue, long before becoming an internationally recognized global brand.

More than 50 years after it moved to Emeryville, Trader Vic’s is returning to its roots. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee touts the return as another victory for Oakland.

“My administration is deeply committed to backing businesses like Trader Vic’s and Plum Market—partners who invest in our city, uplift our local workforce, and support thousands of local jobs,” Lee said.

The latest Trader Vic’s – called Trader Vic’s Outpost – is located at the Oakland International Airport in Terminal 2 near Gate 25 and had a soft opening in August.

With 108 dining seats, 28 bar seats and a counter for standing-room customers, travelers from around the world can have a full-service restaurant and bar experience or take-out for those with planes to catch.

Open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., breakfast, lunch, dinner, cocktails will be served.

Trader Vic’s returning to its roots confirms Condé Nast’s decision to name Oakland the #1 Food City in America two years in a row, and just earlier this month, ranked Oakland #6 on their list of Best Cities in the U.S.!

“The opening at OAK is incredibly meaningful for us,” said Rhett Rosen, CEO of Trader Vic’s Hospitality Group, according to the company website. “Trader Vic’s was born in the Bay Area, and this new location gives us the chance to welcome travelers with a taste of that original spirit before they take off. It brings together everything people love about Trader Vic’s — great cocktails, flavorful food, warm hospitality and a little sense of escape — in a place that connects Oakland to the world.”

Trader Vic’s is an Oakland institution and one of the region’s most recognizable hospitality brands, said Port of Oakland Director of Aviation Craig Simon on the web site.

“Travelers are increasingly seeking dining options that are memorable, locally rooted, and uniquely representative of the communities they are visiting. Trader Vic’s delivers all of that while providing a high-quality food and beverage experience for our guests. We are proud to welcome this hometown favorite to Terminal 2,”

The original Trader Vic’s in Oakland:

In 1934, with an investment of $500, Bergeron opened his initially small restaurant at 65th Avenue and San Pablo, serving comfort foods for lunch and dinner and beers and whiskeys. As his clientele grew, so did his restaurant, expanding space and menu options. After visiting this establishment, famed San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen proclaimed that the “best restaurant in San Francisco is in Oakland.”

There were as many as 25 franchises worldwide, including the U.S. Trader Vic’s is now headquartered in Martinez.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Business

Oakland Coal Terminal Backed by Trump Would Be Bigger, Dirtier Than Promised, Says Report

A recent feasibility study commissioned by potential investors says an Oakland coal terminal backed by President Donald Trump could export 13 million tons a year — three times the amount estimated in an earlier environmental review. Surprisingly, the report also contradicts devel

Published

5 days ago

October 19, 2026

Post News Group

East Bay residents have been fighting alongside No Coal in Oakland for more than a decade. Photo courtesy of No Coal in Oakland.

By Post Staff

Surprisingly, the report also contradicts developers’ and project advocates’ repeated pledges that the coal would be stored in a covered terminal. Instead, the millions of tons of coal shipped annually from inland states to the West Gateway terminal in Oakland would be stored in “two open-air bunkers,” with about 150,000 tons of coal per stockpile, before being sent overseas, according to the recent report cited by the L.A. Times. (https://ruic.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Port-Study-RUIC-Bulk-Commodity-Ocean-Terminals-Study.pdf)

Residents and clean air advocates have long expressed concerns that coal dust would worsen pollution in West Oakland and throughout the East Bay.

The proposed site of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) is located at the former Army base near the Port of Oakland, which developer Phil Tagami has been trying for years to turn into a shipping terminal despite determined community opposition.

Trump announced a $75-million investment in the project in June, about a third of its estimated cost. The new terminal would be the largest coal export site on the West Coast, transporting coal to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia, according to the Trump administration.

Opponents say a new terminal would undermine years of progress cleaning up the air in West Oakland, which has a history of disproportionate pollution and high asthma rates due to its proximity to the port and other industry.

According to No Coal in Oakland organizer Ted Franklin, who has been active for 11 years in the fight to stop the coal terminal, the report indicates that investors may be looking for a cheaper way to build the terminal.

“We were shocked but not surprised” by the report, Franklin said. “Basically, it seems that the plan now is to store open piles of coal, which is a less expensive project than creating a completely enclosed facility.”

The threats that the project poses are real, but it faces a lot of economic and legal hurdles, he said.

Coal production is in permanent decline worldwide, he said, wondering who was going to “invest money in an industry that has no future.”

Further, the project has not yet attracted big investors. “There’s no bank, no financing, no financial institution backing this,” he continued.

A major legal hurdle facing the project is the passage of Assemblymember Mia Bonta’s bill, AB 40, the Community-First Coal Review Act, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30.

The law requires developers of large-volume bulk coal facilities to complete a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before they can operate.

The law was specifically designed to block or delay the coal terminal project.

The report to potential developers was produced by consulting groups Norda Stelo and Wood Mackenzie in July and released this month. It was commissioned by the Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition, made up of eight Utah counties that are considering investing about $43 million into the terminal to receive Utah coal.

The consultants produced their findings after visiting Oakland, examining engineering documents and holding discussions with Savage Cos., a Utah-based transport and logistics company selected to operate the facility

Research has shown that coal terminal operations can be dangerous to public health. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach moved away from open-air coal and petroleum coke storage three decades ago.

The report says that the site could process 12 million metric tons, or 13.2 million tons, of coal each year, three times more than the terminal’s approved environmental impact report from 2002 and its 2012 addendum. Neither document mentions coal specifically, but rather bulk commodities.

The coal arriving in Oakland could also be dirtier then had been previously stated, according to the report. Project officials previously said the terminal would handle only high-grade western bituminous coal from Utah, but the recent report says it will also handle Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming and Montana, known to be much dustier.

Nor does the report mention plans to cover the rail cars to prevent pollution, though project officials previously promised they would only utilize coal transported in covered rail cars.

“It appears the developers want to build something much bigger and more polluting than anything they previously revealed, either in court or to the West Oakland community,” said Colin O’Brien, deputy managing attorney at the nonprofit Earthjustice, speaking to the L.A. Times.

The report indicates that the project may be much more expensive and take longer to complete than anticipated. The Energy Department estimates the terminal will cost about $231 million, but the report places the price at between $430 million and $625 million.

The terminal will take 53 months to complete according to the report, significantly longer than Trump’s promise of exports beginning in 2028.

Ted Franklin’s column, “Utah Study Blesses Investment in Oakland Coal Terminal but Leaves Key Questions Unanswered” is available at https://nocoalinoakland.info/utah-study-blesses-investment-in-oakland/