Targeted Industries Partnership Program
A Joint Enforcement and Educational Effort in the Agricultural and Garment Industries

Fourth Annual Report
1 9 9 6

California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE)
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (USDOL)


CONTENTS

A TIPP SYNOPSIS Go Back to Table of Contents


What is TIPP?

TIPP is the acronym for the Targeted Industries Partnership Program, which combines and coordinates resources from federal, State, and local agencies to enforce labor laws and educate employers and employees about those laws. TIPP currently targets the garment manufacturing and agricultural industries, which have long histories of labor law, employment tax, health and safety violations. TIPP's four lead agencies, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (USDOL) develop TIPP's agenda and recruit and coordinate other state and local agencies to participate in that agenda. TIPP has coordinated up to twelve agencies in a single enforcement action. The addition of EDD as a lead agency in 1996 has enabled TIPP to more effectively target the underground economy.

TIPP's Beginnings

DLSE initiated TIPP in November, 1992 as a two-year pilot project with USDOL during a time of historic budget austerity for California government. The two founding agencies acknowledged the success of their two-year pilot project on November 1, 1994 when they signed a Memorandum of Understanding that broadened TIPP's jurisdiction and extended its existence indefinitely.

The TIPP Philosophy

TIPP is designed to enforce existing law more effectively and efficiently by sharing the resources of those government agencies that have an enforcement or educational mission in the targeted industries. For example, rather than performing multiple, uncoordinated investigations, one agency may perform an audit and share the results with other TIPP agencies, preserving taxpayer dollars and reducing unnecessary, redundant government intrusion.

The TIPP Mission

TIPP seeks to enhance fair business competition and improve workers' lives by eliminating the unfair competitive advantage noncompliant employers create for themselves by evading labor, employment tax, health and safety laws. To accomplish these goals, TIPP seeks to achieve compliance with labor, employment tax, health and safety laws by employers in the targeted industries by leveraging the remedies of each participating agency to maximize their effectiveness. For example, a garment manufacturer must be registered by DLSE before he or she can operate legally, but the applicant must first demonstrate that he or she does not have an outstanding wage assessment, unpaid civil penalty, or a tax liability, among other criteria. Under the TIPP program, an applicant who, for example owes back wages under a USDOL assessment, will not be issued a state license or be allowed to operate unless he or she arranges to pay the back wages owed under the federal assessment.

The TIPP Organization

TIPP is administered by representatives from the four principal agencies, DLSE, Cal/OSHA, EDD and USDOL. In order to coordinate agencies with different cultures, laws, and protocols, TIPP vested considerable day-to-day authority with Statewide Coordinators and experienced supervising investigators from DLSE and USDOL. The Coordinators plan specific focused enforcement actions, provide a centralized and reliable system of communication, and rapidly resolve differences between agencies.

The State Coordinators are responsible to the Planning Group which consists of senior managers from DLSE, Cal/OSHA, EDD and USDOL. The Planning Group meets every six weeks to review the overall effectiveness of TIPP. The Planning Group also provides a forum to express and resolve substantive interagency conflicts that cannot be resolved by the Coordinators. These meetings provide a safety valve for conflicts and frustrations between agencies and often ensure that small problems do not become insurmountable obstacles. Finally, the Planning Group considers ideas solicited from the public in TIPP's educational forums.

TIPP provides joint training sessions for investigators from the principal participating agencies and encourages investigators from one agency to support others by interviewing or providing translation services when the enforcement action warrants. As investigators learn the laws enforced by the other agencies, they can spot violations and make the appropriate referral.

TIPP Constituencies

TIPP serves three constituencies: employers, employees, and taxpayers. Taxpayers, who through their laws desire minimum labor, health and safety standards, are relieved from paying for that enforcement many times through redundant efforts by uncoordinated agencies. For example, rather than having agencies perform multiple, independent investigations of a business (as was the case in the past), TIPP assigns a single agency to perform an investigation and shares the results with its participating agencies. TIPP has also dramatically reduced taxpayer liability through its effective enforcement of workers' compensation insurance requirements, because taxpayers are liable for industrial injuries or illnesses that occur when an employer is uninsured.

Initially hostile to TIPP, many employer groups now endorse the program, recognizing that TIPP's enforcement actions create a competitive disadvantage for the recalcitrant employer who routinely violates labor, health and safety laws. TIPP also promotes educational programs for employers relating to labor, health and safety laws, and helping employers to avoid liability arising from unintentional violations.

TIPP has recovered millions of dollars in earned and unpaid wages for California's poorest workers. TIPP has also helped ensure that these employees work in a safer environment, know their rights under the law and are familiar with the various agencies that enforce applicable regulations.

From the beginning, TIPP stressed that the interests of these constituencies need not be mutually exclusive, and this belief continues to affect each of TIPP's actions.

TIPP Enforcement Actions

TIPP conducts unannounced žsweepsÓ which coordinate a large number of agencies and their agents in a concentrated enforcement action in a specified region. The sweeps require extensive planning and cross training of employees from various jurisdictions. TIPP investigators also conduct inspections pursuant to individual employee complaints at specific businesses on an ongoing basis. Both the sweeps and the individual inspections cover wage and hour issues, occupational health and safety, housing conditions, child labor, employment tax, field sanitation requirements, and workers' compensation insurance coverage.

TIPP Educational Actions

From the beginning, TIPP recognized that effective enforcement depends on effective education of both employees and employers. In pursuit of this goal, TIPP has initiated the following:

Meetings. Following each sweep, TIPP sponsors an open meeting to discuss the type and number of violations found so that employers can concentrate on correcting practices that incur penalties. In turn, TIPP gathers immediate feedback about its enforcement activity. TIPP sponsors educational seminars for both employers and employees on labor and health and safety issues. TIPP sponsors widely-advertised Open Forums for employers, employees, and the interested public. Open Forums are specific to the targeted industry and are held in cities throughout California.

In a promising development that emerged shortly after TIPP began, employer groups have begun to sponsor their own educational seminars, to which TIPP provides spokespersons. TIPP also provides spokespersons for local outreach efforts sponsored by any public interest group or government agency. For example, TIPP has participated in meetings sponsored by La Cooperativa and the Employment Development Department's Monitor Advocates' Office.

Printed Material. TIPP distributes two booklets for employers that it developed in its first year, A Summary of Some Basic California and Federal Employment Requirements for Garment Industry Employers, now available in five languages, and A Summary of Some Basic California and Federal Employment Requirements for Agricultural Employers. TIPP also distributes pocket-sized cards in both English and Spanish that describe farm workers' rights and how to file a complaint against an employer.

Participating agencies provide a variety of materials not specifically developed for TIPP, but which TIPP may distribute. For example, DLSE publishes the Study Guide to Laws and Regulations Affecting California Farm Labor Contractors as part of its licensing program for farm labor contractors. The Guide summarizes farm labor laws and regulations (including many federal standards) and provides a glossary and a directory of important telephone numbers. Cal/OSHA publishes many helpful materials, especially relating to the written Injury and Illness Prevention Program, a program required of all California Employers. EDD provides copies of its Employers' Guide and Department of Labor provides reprints of federal labor laws and regulations.

Finally, the law requires employers to display several posters describing employee rights in the workplace. For example, the state requires that the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders, which details basic wage, hour and working conditions for employees be posted in every place of employment where workers can read it easily. Other required postings relate to safety and health, minimum wage, workers' compensation insurance coverage, as well as agricultural pesticide warnings and housing requirements. Checking for these postings is an integral part of every TIPP enforcement action, whether it is a sweep or an inspection arising from an individual's complaint.

The Farmworker Hotline. TIPP recognized that farmworkers, who often labor in fields remote from government agencies, needed special accommodation for their grievances. Consequently, TIPP developed a toll-free telephone hotline staffed by bilingual professionals to receive farmworker questions and complaints. The farmworker hotline is 1-800-733-3899.

The Garment Hotline. It soon became apparent to the program coordinators that a statewide hotline for the garment industry was also necessary so that employees and employers could report suspected violations to TIPP. In 1996, a garment hotline was established. The garment hotline is 1-800-803-6650.

TIPP Targeting

TIPP is beginning to narrow its focus on a new, principal target within the targeted industries: the recidivist offender. TIPP develops a Targeted Offender Profile (TIPP/TOP) and then searches available data bases for information related to that profile. The addition of EDD as a partner has enabled TIPP to target the underground economy more effectively.

Because TIPP's principal agencies have agreed to expand TIPP actions beyond the initial targeted industries, new enforcement and educational targets may develop in the future.

The TIPP Partnership Web

TIPP has also begun to develop partnerships with agencies that do not participate directly in TIPP enforcement or education efforts. TIPP shares information with other agencies pursuant to formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). TIPP has developed MOUs with the Internal Revenue Service and the State Franchise Tax Board. TIPP has also developed similar MOUs with labor agencies in other states that have similar agricultural and garment manufacturing industries.

TIPP PROGRAM AUGMENTATION Go Back to Table of Contents


The garment industry has a disproportionate number of employers who pay less than the minimum wage, do not pay required overtime rates and who violate employment tax and safety laws. Such employers frequently employ undocumented workers who often do not file complaints with State or Federal agencies. Legitimate garment manufacturers operate at a distinct disadvantage. The August 2, 1995, raid on an El Monte sweatshop conducted by TIPP investigators is the most striking example of these labor and health and safety abuses. The El Monte case involved the discovery by teams of State and Federal investigators of Thai immigrant workers who were found to have worked in slave like conditions for an average of 84 hours per week while being paid only $1.60 an hour.

The original TIPP partners include the USDOL, Wage and Hour Division and the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA). An approved Budget Change Proposal, for State Fiscal Year 1996-97, provided $2,193,000 in additional budget authority for EDD to fund expansion of DIR efforts in the TIPP program and to fund EDD resources to join the TIPP program. This program, which is aimed at enforcing employment laws in the garment manufacturing industry, will add twenty-four (24) additional staff to this enforcement program. Most of these new positions for the expanded TIPP Unit are located in southern California, primarily in the Los Angeles and Santa Ana DLSE offices.

The USDOL is in the process of hiring approximately forty-four (44) new investigators in the State of California. Twenty-nine (29) of those new positions will be in Southern California. The majority of these new positions are intended to increase the number of bilingual investigators, particularly in the Cantonese, Vietnamese, Korean and Hispanic language areas. Having such capabilities will enhance our education/outreach and investigative efforts in the garment and agriculture industries. A new District Office in West Covina is being opened with field offices in Ontario and Long Beach. While Wage and Hours investigators do investigations in other areas outside of TIPP, it is expected that these new resources will allow us to expand our TIPP enforcement efforts throughout California (see Appendix for DLSE and USDOL organizational charts).

During the months of February and March 1994, the TIPP program conducted a random sample survey of the garment manufacturing industry in order to determine a baseline for the level of compliance with state and federal health and safety laws for the industry. The survey results indicated that there were significant violations relating to employment, health and safety laws in the industry.

In 1996, TIPP conducted another random sample survey of the garment manufacturing industry. The survey indicates that improvements in levels of compliance have occurred during the two-year period since the baseline was determined. Specifically, there were improvements in the compliance of minimum wage and overtime wages, as well as cash payments without itemized statements. (Please refer to Enforcement Statistics on page 14 of the report)

By increasing resources dedicated to enforcement activities of the TIPP Unit, it is estimated that over 1,000 more inspections will be conducted in the garment manufacturing industry on an annual basis. It is anticipated that these increased inspections will result in a substantial number of EDD referrals, penalty assessments and minimum wage and overtime collections.

MEASUREMENTS OF SUCCESS:

ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS Go Back to Table of Contents


In 1996, TIPP increased enforcement efforts in both the garment and agriculture industries. There were a total of 1197 inspections, an increase of 12% over 1995. TIPP recovered $4,672,075 in back wages for garment and agricultural workers. This amount represents an increase of 27% over CY 1995. In addition, the total number of citations issued in both industries also increased to 1036, an increase of 28% over the same period in 1995.

In the garment industry, TIPP targeted the worst violators in an effort to create a level playing field for law abiding employers. In 1996, TIPP targeted the employers in the underground economy. With the addition of EDD as an active partner, TIPP has been able to target the underground economy more efficiently with focused investigations. Because of better targeting, DLSE issued 172 cash pay citations in the garment industry, an increase of 132% over 1995. Furthermore, DLSE issued 54 minimum wage citations, an increase of 116% over the same period in 1995.

Another result of TIPP's increased enforcement activity is that workers' compensation insurance violations have decreased 4 years in a row, thus reducing taxpayer liability for on the job injuries in the garment industry. TIPP also continued to improve its collection rate on penalties assessed from 23% in 1995 to 30% in 1996.

In the agriculture industry, TIPP conducted 449 inspections, an increase of 24% over the 1995 calendar year. Unfortunately, the number of workers' compensation insurance violations increased 156% and the number of cash pay violations increased 177% when compared to 1995. However, the statistics reveal that cash pay violations were not prevalent in the agriculture industry.

DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IN GARMENT MANUFACTURING
TARGETED INDUSTRIES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Calendar Years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

 

Year

Garment Inspections Conducted

Garment Citations Child Labor

Garment Citations Workers Comp

Garment Citations Cash Pay

Garment Industry Penalty Assessment

Garment Minimum Wage Citations

Total Garment Citations Issued

 

Penalties Assessed

 

Penalties Collected

1993

414

15

140

65

247

14

481

$3,957,250

$253,432

1994

500

12

122

73

353

15

575

$4,546,000

$372,224

1995

703

41

99

74

457

25

696

$4,714,506

$1,111,292

1996

748

24

94

172

524

54

868

$3,192,695

$958,035

During calendar year 1996, DLSE and the U.S. Department of Labor collected $4,225,979 in wages on behalf of garment workers.

DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IN AGRICULTURE
TARGETED INDUSTRIES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Calendar Years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

Year

Agricultural Inspections Conducted

Agricultural Citations Child Labor

Agricultural Citations Workers Comp

Agricultural Citations Cash Pay

Agricultural Industry Minimum Wage

Total Agricultural Civil Citations

Agricultural Criminal Citations


Penalties Assessment


Penalties Collections

1993

647

153

99

19

11

282

144

$1,603,400

$142,302

1994

589

74

62

19

18

173

87

$998,300

$97,108

1995

362

64

23

9

15

111

28

$659,000

$135,546

1996

449

65

59

25

19

168

45

$786,200

$139,575

During calendar year 1996, DLSE and the U.S. Department of Labor collected $446,096 in wages on behalf of farmworkers.

Targeted Industries Partnership Program
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)
1996

Agriculture

Inspections

Violations Cited

Penalties Proposed

296

474

$249,189

Garment Manufacturing

Inspections

Violations Cited

Penalties Proposed

197

441

$300,000

RESULTS OF THE 1996 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GARMENT SURVEY Go Back to Table of Contents


A Targeted Industries Partnership Program (TIPP) effort involving the California State Labor Commissioner's office, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, and Cal/OSHA, recently completed its second survey to determine the level of compliance in the apparel industry. The first such survey was conducted in February and March 1994, to establish a baseline for the level of compliance with the State and Federal labor, health and safety laws in the garment industry.

The original 1994 study included firms from throughout the state. Because the 1994 results indicated that 80% of California apparel firms are located in the five county area of the Los Angeles Basin - Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties - the 1996 survey focused on those five counties. In order to accurately compare the findings of the two surveys, the data on firms outside the LA Basin were removed from the 1994 data set and the remaining data were re-tabulated for comparison with the 1996 data.

Both the 1994 and 1996 surveys consisted of a random sample of firms taken from the California Employment Development records listing of firms in the 2300 series SIC code for the second quarter of the previous year. In 1996 this yielded a pool of 4849 firms, from which 110 firms were randomly selected for investigation. Thirty-four of those firms were subsequently eliminated from the survey for a variety of reasons (for example, the firm may have gone out of business or did not manufacture apparel), leaving a sample group of seventy-six firms.

The 1996 survey indicates improvements in levels of compliance have occurred during the two year period since the baseline was determined. The 1996 results also demonstrate that monitoring appears to affect violation outcomes. Most startling about the garment industry's turnaround was a shift in attitudes by the manufacturers in monitoring the employment and pay practices of their contractors. Monitoring was introduced by Wage and Hour as a tool emphasizing prevention instead of the old-style tactic of responding to complaints and assessing monetary penalties after violations were uncovered following an investigation. Recognizing again the premise that most workplace violations occur out of ignorance and not of willful intent, it was decided that we would work with and give employers (garment manufacturers) the knowledge and tools to check their own employment practices as well as those of their contractors. The results were dramatic as to the effect žmonitoringÓ had on compliance, as evidenced by Chart C, reflecting the results of the 1996 Southern California Survey. TIPP will continue to use compliance surveys in the future to measure the effect of intervention tools (such as monitoring) on compliance.

Finally, the survey shows some profiles of the types of firms that violate a number of labor, health and safety laws. Firms with workers' compensation insurance violations, firms not registered with the State, and firms with illegal homeworkers (persons who manufacture wearing apparel at their residence) show significantly higher levels of violations.

1994 to 1996: Improved Compliance in Most Areas

VIOLATION CATEGORY

PERCENT OF FIRMS IN VIOLATION 1994

PERCENT OF FIRMS IN VIOLATION 1996

Minimum Wage Liability

61%

43%

Overtime Liabilities

78%

55%

Child Labor

4%

0%

Illegal Homework

17%

7%

Record Keeping

74%

64%

Registered with the State

11%

33%

Minimum Wage Fines (State)

13%

11%

Cash Payments w/o Receipts (State)

41%

33%

No Workers' Compensation Insurance

13%

9%

Posting Requirements

63%

41%

OSHA Health and/or Safety

98%

96%

Serious OSHA Violations

35% (approx.)

72%

Tools (State)

not available

20%

Penalty Assessment

99%

99%

Chart A

Chart A describes the percent of violations for various violation categories and shows the percentage level for both 1994 and 1996. While the level of violations from 1994 to 1996 appears to decrease for most categories, there is one increase, the number of firms not registered with the State of California. This increase and the two decreases in overtime violations and posting requirements are statistically significant with a .90 degree of confidence. While health and safety violations remain at a very serious level, the survey indicates a definite trend toward improved compliance in all other categories.

1994 to 1996: Penalty Assessments and Improperly Withheld Wages Fell

Monetary Assessments

Average Assessment or Liability 1994

Average Assessment or Liability 1996

Minimum Wage Due

$3866

$1592

Overtime Due

$3418

$1643

Not Registered with State

$756

$817

Record Keeping

$594

$909

Minimum Wage Penalty

$1346

$101

Cash Pay w/o Receipt

$3784

$2167

No Workers' Compensation Insurance

$4407

$1128

Health and/or Safety

$2274

$3219

Posting Penalty

$26

$23

Tools

not available

$86

Chart B

Chart B illustrates the mean or average monetary assessments or liabilities of firms investigated during the 1994 and 1996 surveys. There were decreases in all categories but three. A statistical analysis of these three, penalties for not being registered, for not keeping required employment records, and for not observing health and safety regulations, indicates these increases are not significant. However, there are two statistically significant improvements at the .90 level of confidence, in the areas of minimum wages and overtime wages due. Average minimum wages due decreased by $2274 from $3866 to $1592, while overtime wages due decreased by $1775 from $3418 to $1643.

1994 to 1996 General Characteristics of Investigated Firms
Description

1994

1996

Percent of firms with wage liability MW and/or OT)

78%

61%

Average total number of violations (out of ten)

4.5

3.8

Average number of employees per firm

28

37

Average number of employees per firm due back wages

13.1

9.4

Percent of firms with a violation

98%

99%

Percent of firms at which goods were confiscated

NA

14%

Percent of firms whose manufacturers were monitoring

NA

48%

Chart C

The general characteristics of the 1994 and 1996 surveys are summarized in Chart C. The number of firms that have some sort of violation remained statistically the same. However, the average total number of violations decreased from 4.55 to 3.8. This decrease is the only general characteristic which was found to be statistically significant (.90 degree of confidence).

The ten violation categories are: not registered with the State, no workers' compensation insurance, record keeping, minimum wage violations, overtime violations, child labor, illegal homework, cash payments without receipts, not having required postings, and health and/or safety violations.

Two of the new data categories added to the 1996 survey were firms whose goods were confiscated (14%), and firms whose manufacturers were žmonitoringÓ their contractors for compliance with wage and hour laws (48%). Confiscations of goods (by the State) are directly related to the number of unregistered firms. žMonitoringÓ included firms whose manufacturers have direct agreements with the Wage and Hour Division as well as firms whose manufacturers have initiated their own programs to monitor.

1996: Monitored Firms Had Significantly Lower Levels of Violations

Description

Not Monitored


Monitored
Average total number of violations (out of 10)

4.9

2.9

Average total number of employees

45

22

Average number of employees due back wages

12.3

7.1

Percent of firms with minimum wage violations

64%

27%

Average minimum wage liability

$2457

$845

Percent of firms with overtime violations

75%

39%

Average overtime liability

$2415

$1127

Average total wage liability

$4812

$1972

Percent of firms with wage liabilities

78%

42%

Percent of firms with registration violations

47%

21%

Percent of firms with workers' compensation violations

17%

0%

Percent of firms with record keeping violations

81%

55%

Percent of firms with tool violations

36%

3%

Percent of firms with illegal homework

11%

3%

Percent of firms with OSHA violations

97%

94%

Percent of firms with posting violations

58%

27%

Chart D

During the past two years the Federal Wage and Hour Division has increased the number of manufacturers (from 4 to 40) that have signed formal Augmented Compliance Program Agreements with the agency. The survey found that 33 of 69 contractors randomly investigated had been monitored by manufacturers, either directly by the manufacturer or indirectly by manufacturers who had hired žmonitoringÓ firms. Monitoring generally includes quarterly audits of time and payroll records and private employee interviews. Firms that were monitored had significantly lower violation levels than firms that were not monitored. Eight different variables were statistically different for firms that were monitored as for firms that were not monitored. At the .99 degree of confidence the average total number of violations was less at a monitored shop than one not monitored (2.9 vs 4.9). At the .95 degree of confidence, the percent of firms with minimum wage violations was less at monitored firms than non-monitored (27% vs 64%), the percent of firms with overtime violations was less at monitored than non-monitored firms (39% vs 75%), the percent of firms with wage liabilities was less (42% vs 78%), percent of firms with registration violations was less (21% vs 47%), percent of firms with workers' compensation insurance violations was less (0% vs 17%), and the percent of firms with tool violations was less (3% vs 36%). At the .90 degree of confidence the percent of firms with posting violations was less at monitored contractors than at non-monitored ones (27% vs 58%). While all other variables had lower levels of violations for monitored firms, they were not statistically significant.

While the difference between a contractor who is monitored and one that is not is noteworthy, the level of compliance at both types of shops is still not acceptable. The goal of the monitoring program is to bring compliance close to 100% within the industry. The survey indicates that 42% of the monitored contractors still have wage liabilities, which is also not an acceptable level. The survey indicates, however, a strong relationship between those firms being monitored and their level of compliance with both State and Federal Wage Laws. The level of industry compliance with Health and Safety Laws remains extremely low.

1996: Characteristics of Firms that Had Workers' Compensation Insurance Violations
Description

WCI Violation

No WCI Violation

Average total number of violations (out of 10)

6.3

3.6

Average number of employees at the firm

19

39

Percent of firms with minimum wage violations

86

39

Percent of firms with overtime violations

100%

51%

Average back wages due

$8220

$2730

Percent of firms with health and/or safety violations

100%

96%

Percent of firms with registration violations

71%

29%

Chart E

1996: Characteristics of Firms that Failed to Register With the State

Descriptions

Registration Violation

No Registration Violation

Average number of violations (out of 10)

4.88

3.3

Average number of employees at the firm

22.8

43.9

Average number of employees due back wages

13.3

7.5

Average back wages due

$5537

$2106

Percent with workers' compensation ins. violations

20%

4%

Percent of firms monitored by manufacturers

29%

58%

Chart F

1996: Characteristics of Firms that Had Illegal Homeworkers

Description

Homework Violation

No Homework Violation

Average total number of violations (out of 10)

6.4

3.6

Percent of firms with minimum wage violations

100%

39%

Percent of firms with overtime violations

100%

52%

Percent of firms with record keeping violations

100%

62%

Percent of firms monitored

20%

50%

Chart G

Finally, an analysis of the data shows a few characteristics of firms that have certain types of violations. Firms that had workers' compensation insurance violations, firms that were not registered with the State, and firms that had illegal homeworkers had certain statistically significant profiles. In the case of firms which had workers' compensation insurance violations, there were three statistically significant variables, the average total number of violations, 6.3 when there was a workers compensation violation versus 3.6 when there was no workers' compensation insurance violation (significant at the .99 level), percent of firms with minimum wage violations, 86% vs. 39% (at the level), and percent of firms with overtime violations, 100% vs. 51% (at .99 level). Firms with illegal homework had an average total number of violations of 6.4 versus 3.6 for those with no homework violation, had 100% violation of minimum wage versus, 39% for those without illegal homework, had 100% violation of overtime provisions versus 52% for those without illegal homework, and had 100% violation of record keeping provisions versus 62% for those without homework violations. Charts E, F and G illustrate the characteristics of these types of firms.

APPENDIX Go Back to Table of Contents


TARGETED INDUSTRIES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
ALL INDUSTRIES

CALENDAR YEARS 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

Actual
1993

Actual
1994

Actual
1995

Actual
1996

Projected
1997

Total Authorized Staff

15 *

15

15

36.5**

36.5

Inspections Conducted

1,061

1,089

1,065

1,197

3,000

Civil Citations Issued by TIPP

763

748

807

1,036

1,500

Wages Recovered & Paid To Workers or UWF

$1,779,395

$2,574,521

$3,269.047

$4,672,075

$3,500,000

Penalty Collections By DLSE

$395,734

$469,332

$1,246,838

$1,097,610 

$3,500,000

Confiscations (Garment Only)

N/A

43

81

72

100

TIPP Audit Referrals To EDD

323

276

205

N/A

800

Criminal Citations (Processed by Local DA)

144

87

28

45

50

Penalty Assessments

$5,560,650

$5,544,300

$5,373,506

$3,978,895

$8,000,000

N/A - Information not collected
* PY for 1/2 Calendar Year
** Majority of these positions were not filled until October, 1996