Labor Union Blog

The House (293-132) passed legislation today to extend federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefits and the pay roll tax cut. UI benefits were set to expire Feb. 29 and the legislation that President  Obama will sign extends the program for the nation’s nearly 13 million jobless workers through the end of the year. The Senate is expected to pass the measure shortly.

In letter to lawmakers this morning, the AFL-CIO said that not extending UI and the payroll tax cut would compound the hardship of jobless families and jeopardize the recent signs of job growth.

But the bill not only reduces the number weeks of benefits for the unemployed, it unfairly penalizes federal workers. “Shared sacrifice should start at the top, with a surtax on millionaires, not with unemployed workers or middle class working families. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill.”

Here is the full text of the letter:

Dear Representative:

Federal unemployment benefits and the temporary payroll tax cut need to be extended through the end of this year because the jobs crisis is far from over and the economic recovery is still fragile.  Withdrawal of these critical economic supports would compound the already unacceptable hardship of jobless families and jeopardize the recent promising signs of job growth.  By contrast, the conference report for H.R. 3630 would reduce the number of weeks of unemployment benefits available for unemployed workers and gratuitously penalizing federal employees.

Any offset to this package will reduce its effectiveness in stimulating economic growth and creating jobs, and for this reason federal extended benefits have historically not been offset.  However, if there has to be an offset in this bill, it should be a surtax on incomes over $1 million.  Republicans in Congress have insisted on protecting millionaires at the expense of jobless workers and middle income working class Americans.

Unemployed workers and federal employees continue to be blamed for problems they did not cause.  Meanwhile, the people who did cause the crash of 2008, from which our economy is still slowly recovering, have largely gotten off scot free.  Shared sacrifice should start at the top, with a surtax on millionaires, not with unemployed workers or middle class working families who provide vital services to the federal government.

For all of these reasons, the AFL-CIO cannot support H.R. 3630.

Jennifer Angarita, AFL-CIO National Worker Center coordinator, sends us this report.

Since 2008, states across the country have witnessed a wave of restrictive voting changes, which limit individuals’ access to the polls and the ease with which they can register to vote. Advocates, community members and working people gathered this week at an advocacy roundtable at the Center for American Progress to learn about efforts to suppress voting rights on the state level.

Nicole Austin-Hillery, director of the Brennan Center for Justice, explains:

Our democracy is one about providing opportunities to individuals and voter restriction is a pushback and retrogression from [democracy], countering efforts under way for the past decade….In 2011, 20 laws and two executive orders were passed that had the effect of voter restrictions. There are lots of other efforts also under way restricting rights to vote.

Panelists at the advocacy roundtable explained the profound impact recent voting changes will have on the outcome of the next presidential election. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, new voting laws could make it harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to vote. The study found that states that cut back on voting rights have more than 60 percent of the electoral votes needed to win the presidential.

Panelists provided a broad overview of new voter ID requirements, such as burdensome changes that require voters to show government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Laws such as this could disenfranchise the 11 percent of U.S. citizens who lack photo identification. In particular, studies show students, minorities, the elderly and persons with disabilities will be disproportionately affected by these voter ID requirements.

Rashad Robinson, executive director of ColorOfChange, notes:

Voting is the extension of our civic participation. These voter ID laws are part of a larger strategy by extreme right-wing organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to [disenfranchise certain] voters.

Together, members of the advocacy roundtable called on working people to raise awareness of new voting requirements and begin a collaborative fight back against the rising tide of voter suppression.

For more information, check out Cost of Freedom App, a location-based Web app that will provide voters with concise information on how to apply for a voter ID.

While Mitt Romney is campaigning in Michigan this week, workers there are letting him know just how offensive they find his claim that “we should have let Detroit go bankrupt,” when the economy and
the auto industry were about to collapse.

Skilled trade electrician and UAW Local 1700 member Jeff Klayo says Romeney’s comment is “an attack on American workers.”

We’re out there trying to get the American dream, we’re trying to keep our jobs, save our jobs, get a good wage put food on our tab les, pay our taxes…If the company is successful, we can be successful. If the company’s taking a downturn, we take a downturn with it.

Not only is Romney’s statement, made in 2008, an assault on working people, it’s really bad economics. On Wednesday, General Motors (GM) announced that 2011 saw its largest profit ever: $7.6 billion. That means profit-sharing for workers, who in turn will plow the money back in to the community–creating even more jobs and economic resurgence.

Foreshadowing the political impact of Romney’s stance, Stacie Steward, a skilled trade electrician and UAW Local 1700 member, put it this way:

There’s not a person in Michigan who doesn’t have a sister or a brother, a cousin, a friend that is tied to the auto industry. Every Michigan citizen should be appalled by what Mitt Romney said.

Even a contributor to the conservative business publication Forbes writes:

General Motors (GM) went bankrupt in 2009. But thanks to President Barack H. Obama, it restructured itself and emerged from bankruptcy. GM’s record profit for 2011 vindicates Obama’s action. GM’s record profit for 2011 vindicates Obama’s action.

The auto industry rescue saved more than 1.4 million jobs up and down the supply chain. And helped ensure the resurgence of an industry vital to U.S. manufacturing. But Romney’s opposition to bolstering U.S. jobs and key industries is supported by Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Santorum.

Prior to the emergency rescue loans, UAW members made deep sacrifices beginning in 2005 to save the company, giving up pay increases, overtime pay, holidays, agreeing to a reduced pay and benefit
structure for new hires, and other concessions. Obama demanded additional concessions and shared sacrifice from both labor and management in exchange for the loans.

In return, America’s carmakers retooled to create the energy-efficient cars of the future and repaid their outstanding loans years ahead of schedule.

Says UAW President Bob King:

The auto industry added more than 200,000 jobs in the last two-and-a-half years, and 2011 was the strongest year of industry job growth since 1994. Demand for their cars is going up, so GM, Ford and Chrysler are starting to run three production shifts a day at many plants. Added shifts and new facilities mean jobs for thousands more workers in Michigan, Ohio and other places across the country.

This is a cross-post by Chase Brandau from Working America’s Main Street blog.

In late 2008, 28-year-old Rochester, Minn., native Tim Wynn injured his hand on the job while working as a machinist and was eventually unfairly fired due to the injury. “It was at that time I had to file for unemployment insurance,” Wynn recalls. “Which was only a little over $400 a month, but we were able to make it work with one of us still working.”

Wynn had to rely on unemployment insurance for over a year, while looking for a job and simultaneously trying to get the surgery he needed for his damaged hand but could not afford to pay for. However, if the federal system for unemployment benefits had been overhauled to include new proposals, Wynn would not have qualified for unemployment insurance.

Working America, the grassroots organization for workers whose 250,000 members in Minnesota have expressed great concern about these new requirements, has been bringing awareness to this issue to Minnesotans all over the state. “One of these new state requirements would be to deny unemployment insurance claimants without a high school diploma from receiving benefits, unless they are currently enrolled in a GED program,” says Working America’s Minnesota State Director Brianna Halverson. “Barriers that would require jobless workers have diplomas are simply unfair and unworkable when the waiting lists for GED programs are sometimes years long.”

Wynn, like many, had a family early in life. “I did what I needed to do,” he said, “which was to take responsibility for my family and go straight into the workforce. I knew my career choices would be limited, but I was willing to work hard to provide for my child.”

“I never thought that I would have been in the situation I was in, but the idea that not having a high school diploma would prevent me from receiving unemployment insurance is outrageous,” exclaimed Wynn. “Actually, it would discriminate about half of the co-workers I’ve ever known, many of whom are currently out of work and would be devastated by this.”

Halverson adds, “This provision seems part of a larger agenda to stigmatize unemployment insurance by suggesting that Americans are jobless because of their own failings, rather than because our economy still has 6 million fewer jobs than when the recession started.”

After three years, Wynn prevailed in holding his former employer accountable for unfairly firing him; allowing him to get the surgery to repair his wrist. Wynn now has medical clearance to work again. When asked what would have happened if he had been required to have a high school diploma to receive unemployment insurance, Wynn said: “We would have lost everything. Those benefits were the only thing that kept a roof over our heads and our spirits up.” He added that without the insurance, he would never have been able to get surgery and would have lost use of his hand forever.

Information in a Jan. 26, 2012, statement from Committee of Ways and Means Democrats indicates that if House Republican bill H.R. 3630 is enacted, more than 35,000 Minnesotans would lose unemployment insurance.

“I want others in Minnesota to stop looking at unemployment insurance as something that only costs taxpayers money and which can be easily cut,” says Wynn. “When people have money to stay above water, that means they’re spending it into the economy, which keeps many businesses, employees and families above water as well. Congress should not make being jobless even harder than it already is.”

Donna Gratehouse, who blogs at Democratic Diva and elsewhere on all things Arizona, sends us this.

After a four-hour hearing described by Arizona Capitol Times reporter Jeremy Duda as “testy” on his Twitter feed, the Employment and Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives approved Gov. Jan Brewer’s plan to remove civil service protections from state workers and make them at-will employees. It was a 6-3 party-line vote with Republicans for and Democrats against, proving (once again) that elections have consequences.

Several representatives of AFSCME, the AFL-CIO and public safety unions spoke against the measure. They were countered by the usual assemblage of Chamber of Commerce and Goldwater Institute people who are invariably behind every attack on public workers in Arizona. One Democrat on the committee, Rep. Daniel Patterson, noted that all of the evidence cited in support at the hearing came from (surprise!) a 2010 Goldwater Institute report on the need for personnel reform.

Donna Gratehouse, who blogs at Democratic Diva and elsewhere on all things Arizona, sends us this.

Raise your hand if you were supporting yourself and maybe helping to support your family when you were 18. I know I was, so I can’t fathom what the Arizona Legislature is thinking by putting forth a ballot
referendum that would allow employers to pay workers under 20 years of age substantially less than the state’s minimum wage. Currently it is at $7.65 an hour but this recent measure, if approved by voters, would allow businesses to pay teens and young adults as little as $4.65 an hour.

Proponents argue that it would only apply to those working less than 20 hours a week or for a duration of 90 days or less and that Arizona’s minimum wage stifles job creation. The assumption behind this is that young people who work part time live at home or are otherwise supported by their parents and don’t really need the income. This ignores the harsh economic reality of many families in Arizona, where every working member’s income is needed to keep a roof overhead and dinner on table. And oftentimes part-time work is all that is available to young people. It’s also incredible that the Legislature would propose this at the same time they are seeking to raise tuition at Arizona’s colleges an average of $2000 per student.

“What happened to equal pay for equal work?” asked Wyatt Manoil, a college student who works part-time to help pay his living expenses at school.

I’m barely making it as it is. I don’t even think I could afford to work if that’s all I was making.

Indeed, it’s hard to understand how anyone could think that paying workers less than subsistence wages would benefit Arizona’s economy. No one, not even supporters, expects the referendum to pass at the ballot box. Voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in 2006 that raised Arizona’s minimum wage higher than the federal rate and indexed it to inflation despite intense negative campaigning by the restaurant and other industries. So this is basically tea party legislators wasting our time rather than taking tangible steps to balance the budget and bring good jobs to Arizona.

Patient care improves and costs come down as a result of labor and management partnerships, according to a new Cornell University study.

The report, “How Labor-Management Partnerships Improve Patient Care, Control Costs, and Labor Relations,” profiles joint work involving front-line staff, unions and management at Kaiser Permanente’s San Rafael and San Diego medical centers in California, Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont and the Contact Center at Montefiore Medical Center’s Care Management Corporation (CMO) in New York.

At the four facilities studied, joint labor-management activities have resulted in:

• Improved turnaround time for test results
• Increased awareness about workplace safety
• Improved patient satisfaction scores
• Quicker access to home care services
• Less staff turnover

Peter Lazes, director of Cornell’s Healthcare Transformation Project says:

Reforming our health care system to be accessible and provide high-quality services has been at the core of many recent national and state initiatives. This report provides a roadmap for how to structure union-management partnerships in a healthcare setting. These activities, encouraged by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s initiative Partnership for Patients to Improve Care and Lower Costs for Americans, are, in fact, making a difference.

The report was prepared by the Healthcare Transformation Project at Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School. Click here for the executive summary. The full report will be available online Feb. 21

Jazz musicians have been—and continue to be—among the most abused of professional performers, writes Todd Bryant Weeks in a Black History Month feature for the latest edition of Allegro, the magazine of American Federatoin of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) Local 802 in New York.

From the days of traveling vaudeville and tent shows through to the civil rights movement and beyond, jazz musicians—especially black musicians—have been subjected to second-class citizenship, particularly in the Deep South.

Some of the greatest figures of the past century were among the most exploited, or were effectively discarded when they grew old and could not earn a living.

Managers, promoters, agents, producers and club owners regularly stole from performers by claiming writing, arranging and other recording credits, shorting players on royalties and other payments, Weeks writes. In 1938, the legendary Joe “King” Oliver,

perhaps the most influential American jazz musician before Louis Armstrong, a renowned performer with an international reputation, was discovered in Atlanta, destitute and working as a street vendor.

But even today, jazz musicians continue to face hardships. In New York City, jazz club owners, who are beneficiaries of a tax relief bill championed by Local 802 that was expected to be used to help fund musicians’ pensions and other benefits, have refused to put the money toward benefits.

Read Weeks’ entire article here and find out more at Justice for Jazz Artists here.

Sarah Seltzer writes for Alternet and other online publications and sends us this.

Trader Joe’s, the popular food chain, which caters to the socially conscious set, had been falling short of its healthful and “progressive” image recently—by refusing to sign onto an agreement to protect tomato pickers. But after a tireless campaign by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), the company has agreed to sign on, and planned protests in front of a Trader Joe’s were canceled.

For well over a year—since fall 2010—the CIW has been pushing for Trader Joe’s to sign on to its Fair Food program, which aims to improve the lot of tomato pickers by calling for better wages, a “penny-per-pound premium” on tomatoes and, most important, a thorough and strict code for fair working conditions.

The CIW is based out of Florida, where the majority of the country’s tomatoes are grown and harvested. After a two decades-long push, including protests, letter-writing campaigns and hunger strikes aimed to educate buyers and suppliers, the CIW is having considerable success in changing conditions for workers on the ground. In recent years, CIW has successfully pushed both major suppliers and major chains, including Whole Foods and McDonald’s to sign onto the Fair Food agreement, with the latter pledging not to deal with tomato suppliers whose practices don’t comply.

At In These Times, Josh Eidelson offers an end-game analysis of both the success of the activism and the reason Trader Joe’s held out for so long:

Throughout the months that it rebuffed CIW’s call for a Fair Food Agreement, Trader Joe’s insisted that it was already paying the extra penny-per-pound. Given that major growers were already signed on, that may well have been true—which suggests that Trader Joe’s true objection may have been less about spending money than about sacrificing power.

Although CIW never called a boycott of Trader Joe’s, “it was always a possibility if we needed to get there,” says CIW staffer Julia Perkins….“The persistence of fair food activists,” says Perkins, “and of their consumers, too, who kept going over and over to them…helped to show them that this was something they wanted to do.”

In a previous story for AlterNet, Eidelson spoke to workers who told him that although tomato pickers still may not make a living wage, these Fair Food agreements over working conditions have curtailed many of the ongoing abuses, including rampant threats and sexual harassment.

Tomato pickers in Florida have suffered terrible working conditions up to and including those tantamount to slavery.

As for Trader Joe’s, it’s taken far too long for the company to do the right thing—but following the company’s agreement with CIW, thank you notes are pouring into the chain’s inbox.

Activists say they will monitor these new agreements for genuine compliance and move on to the next supermarket chain, which has yet to sign on: Publix, which they plan to target with a fast.