My Left Nutmeg - Labor

On Holding Down The Conversational Fort, Or, Jobs, Republicans, And Hooey

fake consultant — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:14:27 GMT

As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.

After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.

But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.

Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

A successful comedian usually becomes more megalomaniacal as the success barometer rises. Initial success might be achieved from stand-up but then the comedian envisions a sitcom, then Broadway, albums, extended tours, Europe, and then his or her own production company. These things are all fine. Don't do dinner theater. Don't open stuff, like shopping centers or bowling alleys. Don't do fairs, especially if you follow the pig contest.
--From the book "How To Be A Stand-Up Comic", by Richard Belzer

So...the House Republicans went and promoted and passed out their payroll tax cut plan, and within that plan was a demand that the Junkie XL Pipeline - sorry, that should be Keystone XL Pipeline - get special "expedited" approvals, despite the objections of those who are worried about their water supply, and we have to do this, right now, those same House Republicans tell us, in order to put more or less 6500 folks to work getting the thing built.

And as we mentioned above, this is because the House Republicans care about American jobs and American workers.

So...it may strike you as a bit odd that the exact same House Republicans sent to the Senate in September the "Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act" (HR 2587), which has only one purpose: it tells the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB") that if workers at a company decide to form a union, or the company even thinks a union might be coming, and the company, in retaliation, decides to move work from that plant - or, for that matter, decides to move the entire plant - then neither the NLRB nor the United States Courts shall have the authority to do anything about it.

All of this stems from an effort by Boeing to move work from Washington State to South Carolina in retaliation for union activity by the Puget Sound workforce; the NLRB has ruled that Boeing cannot move the work, and the Company and its friends in Congress have joined forces with other anti-Union Members of Congress to move this legislation.

Need a third-party expert opinion to help make sense of the NLRB's involvement and remedies? Consider this comment from University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Ellen Dannin, via Dennis Kucinich:

The NLRB has decades of experience with cases of this sort, and the National Labor Relations Act is clear that employer actions like Boeing's violate the law. If this were a murder case, it would be a case in which the police found a person saying : "I did it," while standing over a fresh corpse with smoking gun in hand.

Decades of experience, did she say? Yes she did - and she was right. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB had the power to order remedies that include making companies "bring work back", the relevant case being Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. Labor Board, 379 U.S. 203.

The 250 law professors who wrote a letter explaining why HR 2587 is such a bad idea point out that it's not just about Boeing: companies will no longer have any reason to even bargain with unionized workers (or those who wish they were) before closing plants and moving work overseas, as they have to do now under the law; again, that's because no one will have the power of enforcement in these cases anymore.

As you might imagine, that's going to accelerate the departure of jobs overseas, and it won't take very long to get to 6500, which makes all that Republican fussin' and fightin' and sanctimoneoussin' about Keystone look a bit hollow, eh?

Let's jump to the side track, as it were, and take a moment to talk about why the question of which Party controls Congress matters: HR 2587 was introduced into the House, and if the Democrats controlled the Chamber it would have died in Committee, and that would have been that...but they don't, and it didn't, so the bill made it to the House floor, where it passed with no Democratic "aye" votes and six Republicans voting "nay".

Then it went to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Sometimes Frustrating) has a bit more power than a Speaker of the House to kill any bill before his Chamber, if he's so inclined; in this case the bill sits on the Senate Legislative Calendar, and unless he says otherwise, that's where it'll stay. Of course if Mitch McConnell (R-Hates Obama With The Fire Of A Thousand Suns) were Majority Leader, he would have that bill on the Senate Floor in a heartbeat - and it would pass with a Republican majority, unless Democrats were willing to stand firm and filibuster the thing or the President was willing to use the veto pen, neither of which seems particularly certain.

A companion bill, S 1523, was introduced by Lindsey Graham; it was referred to Committee, possibly to never be seen again - which is also thanks to Harry Reid, with an assist from Tom Harkin, who is the relevant Chair.

At this point I was going to move on to the "what have we learned today" part of the deal, but before I do, I want to take a moment to show you just what kind of legislation our GOP friends will bring to the table, given the chance:

S 1720, the "Put All Your Crazy Eggs In One Basket Act" (not the real bill title, but close enough), was introduced by John McCain just before Halloween (it's now on the Legislative Calendar, not doing much), and it's a classic.

This one single bill calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote, a semi-flat income tax, repeals "ObamaCare", repeals Dodd-Frank (Wall Street reform), says you basically can't sue for medical malpractice anymore, says that if Congress fails to approve any Federal Agency regulation in 90 days, it's invalid, and then says no Agency can pass any regulation, of any kind, until unemployment hits 7.7%...and there's a lot more besides, including, I kid you not, forbidding the EPA from regulating the discharge of pesticides into water.

So now let's get to "what have we learned?"

How about this:

We are going to hear a lot over the next 60 days about how the GOP loves you, the American worker, but at the exact same time they are looking to...well...put all the crazy eggs in one basket, if they can get away with it, and at the same time they're looking to make it easier and easier to send more jobs to more countries than ever before, even to the point of trying to tell courts and regulators that they can no longer enforce laws Republicans can't get repealed.

As our GOP friends stand before you, these next couple months, professing their undying love, remind them of this conversation today, and HR 2587, and S 1720, McCain's "Crazy Egg Basket" bill, and then ask them if they think the GOP really cares about American jobs, or if they're just getting hustled by slightly-slicker versions of used-car dealership credit managers?

Then you lean in close, look 'em in the eye, smile just a bit, and you say to 'em: "And hey, while you're here...what do I gotta do to get you into a slightly used 1993 Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon...today?"

Then you can both have a little laugh - while you take their money and run.

On The Emergence Of China, Or, Zhou Knew This Was Coming

fake consultant — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:06:14 GMT

After doing a bit of mountain hiking a few days back, I had a chance to get involved in a great afternoon conversation with the Alliance for American Manufacturing's Mike Wessel, who also serves as a Commissioner with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; the conversation was about how we're doing when it comes to our relationship with China.

As it turns out, the two events went well together, because what I'm hearing from these guys is that we have a great big ol' mountain to climb if we hope to get back to a level playing field in our interactions with this most important country.

There's news to report across a variety of issues; that's why today we'll be talking about trade, human rights, cybersecurity, poverty and development, and the methods by which you can apply "soft power" to achieve hard results.

The entirely unanticipated result: all of this will reveal the naïveté of Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy; we'll discuss that at the end.

The King of China's daughter
So beautiful to see
With a face like yellow water
Left her nutmeg tree
--From the song "The King of China's Daughter", by Natalie Merchant

So let's start with the background stuff: the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission exists today because of the legislative wars surrounding China being granted Most Favored Nation status back in the day.

At the time, there were concerns about the way China does business on the international stage, and the Commission provides a follow-on monitoring program to examine questions regarding the Chinese human rights record, issues related to economics, cybersecurity issues, the intentions of the Chinese military, and lots more.

The Commission issues annual reports to Congress, and this year's report has just been released.

Now normally I would present a point of view, followed by a counterpoint; today, we'll do the opposite: there are folks I listen to out there, including Thomas P. M. Barnett, who would tell you that you are not going to be able to keep spending $900 billion a year on the defense budget if you can't find an opponent worth $900 billion a year, and China looks like that kind of opponent, in a number of ways that Al Qaeda never could...even if, in Barnett's opinion, China is a great big paper tiger.

Al Qaeda will never build aircraft carriers, or intercontinental ballistic missiles; they'll never put to sea in submarines or build a stealth fighter, and they darn sure aren't going to be mounting military operations in space or engaging in cyberwarfare.

And yet, if you're a defense contractor, a General, or an Admiral, that's where all the money is; naturally, if the money goes away, some of those Generals and Admirals are not going to have the chance to "graduate" from the military and become defense contractor representatives themselves.

Put it all together, and some would tell you that the biggest battle facing the Military/Industrial Complex today...is making sure we're always nervously looking under our beds at night, just to be safe.

You should also know that our first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, convinced his brand-spanking-new country to put in place a series of protective tariffs. The intent was to foster manufacturing in the then-agrarian United States; this was intended to create a climate favorable for non-farm businesses and to allow a far more disparate group of immigrants to come to the new Nation than what would have occurred if the only major business activities around the country were farming-related.

So with all that in mind, let's talk China.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (the USCC) wants you to know that China is very much on a knifedge: the country is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (the CCP) and the People's Liberation Army (the PLA).

The USCC would tell you that the primary goal of the CCP and PLA leadership is to "protect their phony-baloney jobs" and the corruption that goes with 'em (thanks for the line, Mel Brooks), and that they have to do a few things to keep those jobs safe: they have to find a way to make 900 million near-peasants into a middle class, quickly, because the peasants have seen how the other 300 million live, to secure markets and resources China has to begin to project power around the world, by military or other means, and they have to make extra sure that nobody in China, except the CCP, gets the opportunity to take over the political conversation - in other words, ensure that the "Arab Spring" doesn't become the "Jasmine Spring".

There's more: in a country without something like Social Security, China's population will age faster than any in history, and many of the 900 million seem to want to move from the country to the city in numbers so large that they literally can't build cities fast enough.

So how does the Chinese Government deal with all this?

What China has been doing is seeking internal "quietude" by growing the economy through manufacturing, and they have decided to choose certain industries as the linchpin of "valuing up" that growth, so that China's low-tech manufacturing becomes more high-tech. (Think computers and telecommunications, space, alternative fuel vehicles, aviation, green energy technologies, that sort of thing.)

China has decided that virtually the only way a foreign company can do business in any of the "chosen" areas is to mandate technology transfers that allow Chinese companies to obtain the methods and tools needed to compete with the foreign supplier down the road. (This is officially against WTO rules; China disputes that assertion. The USCC says they now make these demands in subtle ways that are less "enforceable".) Chinese buyers are told to give preference to "state-innovated" technologies.

China also uses their currency as a way of "preferencing" the local economy. The Renminbi (RMB) is, according to most observers, deliberately undervalued in order to make Chinese goods cheap overseas and imported goods expensive at home. Mike Wessel would tell you it's about 40% undervalued, and that that "trade tax" (my term, not his) costs the US budget about $500 billion a year, with a similar impact on State budgets. Despite much USA pressure and some recent upward valuation (roughly 6% last year), it looks like China is not going to move much on the RMB anytime soon.

Wessel anticipates China will spend about $1.5 trillion on anti-poverty subsidies to quell unrest over the next 5 years; that would become a lot more difficult if a revaluation were to occur.

During the 1990s China began to move to a free-market model that emphasized the growth of privately-owned businesses; Wessel says today China is going back to promoting the State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to the detriment of a free market.

This has been bad for our own industrial strategy, such as it is, which assumed we would be selling China lots of high-tech goods, even as they sold us cheap goods. That has not worked out; in fact, China is now the largest market for cars and cell phones, among other products...and those products are not being manufactured in the USA.

It's reported that the theft of intellectual property is the normal way business is done in China; as an example Wessel notes that something like 80% of the software on Chinese corporate computers is stolen.

We are told that the PLA is looking to create an "area of influence" that extends from the South China Sea to space; to this end the first Chinese aircraft carrier is being readied for service, a stealth fighter is in development, antiship missile systems are being upgraded, and a "counterspace" capability has been demonstrated. (The idea is that Chinese satellites explode near other satellites, thus disabling them. The USA and Russia seem to have similar capabilities.)

Chinese military doctrine, Wessel tells us, advocates shutting down the "network-centric" model of US military operations; it is believed that a significant campaign of computer-based intrusions and attacks on the USA have already taken place, including two events that took place at Department of Defense-operated satellite-control facilities that seem to have been external attacks.

Wessel anticipates that a war with China would begin with China attempting to disable various USA computer networks and infrastructure; the resulting confusion would be used to China's advantage.

Beyond that, Wessel worries that we're buying so much of our telecommunications and computing infrastructure from China that we may be vulnerable to being spied upon by our own laptops; he cited two examples of this problem: a computer sale to the State Department that involved Lenovo laptops and classified data, and a sale of network equipment by Huawei to Sprint that might have allowed classified computer traffic to be compromised.

Chinese spying, Wessel would tell you, is widespread and not limited to government: trade secrets are up for grabs in a big way, and even the US Patent and Trademark Office had to upgrade its security after it discovered patent applications were being snatched out of the system and appearing as Chinese products, with Chinese patents, before the applications could even be acted upon in the USA.

Wessel also wants you to understand that China uses "soft power" to advance its interests: there are lots of "hosted" opportunities to study in China, former military officers of various nations, including the USA, are recruited as "representatives", and there are lots of "get to know us" opportunities that have been created around the world; all of this is intended to "sell" China in ways we do not.

And with all that said, let's talk about Ron Paul.

Paul's attitude toward China seems to be that we should allow free, unimpeded trade, and that the currency manipulations about which many complain would not exist if we went back to a gold standard. Paul stated in 2001 that:

Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods, as some would like, but they do come back and they serve to finance our current account deficit.
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers.

If I've been paying attention during the recent Republican debates, this is still what Paul believes about China, and here are a couple of thoughts about how he's got it entirely wrong:

Paul may not like it, but Hamilton succeeded when he used tariffs to jump-start a manufacturing economy in this country, and not having free trade is working pretty well for China as well. Unfortunately, it's working very badly for us.

On the one hand, Wal-Mart and all the others who import less-expensive products from China have done a great job of masking the fact that incomes have been either stagnant or declining for about 99% of us, but Wessel would say that's been at the cost of sending millions upon millions of jobs to a country that is working hard on every level to ensure we can never again compete as a manufacturing nation - and while we thought we would make up that difference with our high-tech advantages, theft and spying and a devalued currency and "partnerships with benefits" and protectionist "state-innovation" rules have made sure we don't.

A gold standard won't fix this, and simply advocating that we allow China unfettered access to USA markets while they rob us blind seems a bit like suggesting everyone leave their houses unlocked so that the market can more efficiently decide which ones are the best for burglars.

So we've covered a lot of ground today, and let's wrap this thing up with a summary of where Commissioner Wessel says we've been:

We have a competitor in China who will do more or less anything to keep its current political leadership in power, even as that leadership is forever worried that 900 million of its citizens will discover that you can overthrow a government.

The PLA is busy as well, with the South China Sea and everything above being the "area of influence"; computer warfare seems to be the next phase.

"Soft power" is also being applied; we have former military officers and Chinese language students and lots of other folks either hearing or telling China's story all over the world and we don't do a good job of answering back.

All the while, the CCP is working hard to create a higher-tech Chinese economy, by hook or by crook, and that's putting the future of our own economy at risk, not to mention the operations of our government.

We, as a people, seem to be unaware of all of this, and that plays out in the form of ignorance in our politicians, with Ron Paul being a recent prominent example.

So now it's up to you to figure out what all this means: is this really a substantial threat that we have to defend against (and there's lots of evidence to suggest it is), or is this an effort to find a way to keep spending that $900 billion every year?

My take: Wessel's not a defense lobbyist, even as he is trying to promote manufacturing in the USA, and there is a lot of evidence to support his thinking; with all that in mind I'm more inclined to believe he's sending a warning we better pay attention to than he is seeing Commies under the bed.

Nonetheless, there are lots of folks who would like to keep stackin' that big cheddar, at your expense, and even as we think very hard about China, we better also keep in mind that Northup Grumman could be just as dangerous.

On Doing Better Than 50%, Part Two, Or, Is "Made in USA" A Jobs Program?

fake consultant — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:50:41 GMT

When last we met, it was to discuss a Big Idea that the Obama Administration might apply to get some job creation going, despite a difficult Congress; the Big Idea was to look at the "Buy American" provisions that exist in our laws, regulations, and Executive Orders and see if we could practice a bit of "jobs arbitrage" by not just meeting the "Made in USA" requirements when governments across this country make purchases, but exceeding them.

(As it stands today, pretty much any "good or service" with more than 50% Made in USA content qualifies as a Made in USA purchase, even if 49% of the "good or service" comes from somewhere else).

At the time, I told you that if all went well we could look forward to comments from both Labor and the Administration as to the practicality of the Big Idea, and as it turns out I have comments for you that hit close to that mark - and a bit more besides:

On Saturday I just happened to bump into Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09); in the course of that conversation I told him what we're doing here, and he wanted to offer a few thoughts of his own...and when you put all that together, I think we're going to have a lot to talk about.

"Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them; Britain has trembled like an auge at the report of a French fleet of flat bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was preformed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc.
--From "The Crisis", by Thomas Paine; essay of December 23, 1776

So the two-second recap of the Big Idea is that if government, at all levels, were Buying More American we could create More American Jobs, and as we mentioned above, the way the rules stand today, 51% Made in USA is good enough - and that seems to leave a lot of room to do better.

Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems, and despite what Tom Lehrer might say, it's not all skittles and beer for this proposal either.

I have a source in the Administration who would not go on the record for this story; nonetheless I was sent a detailed email response "on background", which I'll paraphrase for our use today:

We are looking to expand US trade abroad, and we have made deals for access. We agree not to restrict, for the most part, where purchases can be made, and we expect reciprocity from the rest of the world when their governments do their purchasing - or at least from those governments with whom we have a WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). (Want even more details? Check out either the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 or this Congressional Research Service report).
The Administration would tell you that 95% of the world's consumers live outside the USA, making trade reciprocity particularly valuable for the US.
They would also tell you that if we decide on our own to "change the deal", then we should expect retaliation from other governments.
Beyond that, they would suggest that there are US companies that source many of their products or product components globally, and those companies would actually be hurt by stricter Made in USA requirements.
Finally, the Administration points out that there is a dollar cost for more Made in USA, as opposed to using what can often be cheaper foreign sourcing.

In the introduction I suggested that I had a comment from Labor, and that's somewhat correct. I contacted the Washington Sate Labor Council (WSLC) for a comment, and they sent me material that came from the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), at the same time telling me that the AAM's position on Buy American is the same as their own.

It is inaccurate to refer to the AAM as a Labor organization, however, as they are a partnership of Unions, manufacturers, and other interested parties. Among those partners are the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers (USW); the USW was one of the founders of the group.

They take issue with a great deal of what the Administration has to say, and I'll start with a quote from an email sent to me Friday by the AAM's Steven Capozzola:

The threat of retaliation for buy America is ridiculous. The law (the Buy American Act, 41 USC 10a-d) is specifically written so as to be applied when permissible under our existing trade obligations.

Here's a quote from AAM material that was referred to me by the WSLC:

...the U.S. is, by far, the world's largest importer, soaking up a net $819 billion in goods in 2007...The U.S. imports far more than it exports, a balance of sales that our trading partners are anxious to preserve. This is not about restricting imports. It is about using taxpayer dollars, when allowed by our international obligations, to purchase U.S.-produced goods. As the global downturn has progressed, many industrialized countries such as France and China have already taken similar action to support their domestic manufacturing base.
...These trade agreements do however allow for domestic preference under a number of circumstances...These preferences were negotiated for a reason. It would be irresponsible not to utilize them to the fullest extent possible.
...By contrast, other countries have held themselves out of the reform movement and have instead opted to promote their own manufacturing base through closed self-procurement programs. A good example is China, which, in addition to a recent $586 billion stimulus program, continues to subsidize its own producers via deliberate (and illegal) currency undervaluation. Until countries like China make the same commitments, and sign-on to internationally accepted procurement agreements, the U.S. will accomplish nothing by making yet more unilateral concessions.
In addition, as noted above, these contentions rely on the baseless assumption that the U.S. currently has any significant access to foreign procurement markets that would be at risk if other countries "retaliated." The majority of the foreign stimulus in PPI's tally is made up of $614 billion being spent by countries that have no procurement obligations towards the United States and that already apply domestic procurement preferences (principally China, but also India and Brazil).
-- Alliance for American Manufacturing, "The Facts on 'Buy America' and Domestic Sourcing", February 2009

The AAM would also want you to know that in addition to China numerous other countries, specifically Canada, certain European nations, Japan, and Brazil all use other forms of "discrimination" to "preference" their goods over ours when it comes to government procurement: impossible-to-meet technical standards, "murky" purchase procedures, and bid rigging are all tools used around the world to make sure local suppliers are just a bit more, shall we say...reciprocal...than a US supplier might be.

Look, I hate to do this to everyone, but we're once again running longer than we should, and we still have a lot more to talk about, so at this point I'm going to call "cliffhanger!" and set us up for a Part Three.

Here's the "agenda":

We'll be talking about how the devil's in the details: specifically, we'll be looking at what "Buy American" is already excluded from these various trade agreements- and there's a lot more than you might think, even as some of it is targeted in amazingly specific ways (to do that we'll be paying particular attention to the annexes to the WTO agreement); we'll also get Congressman Smith's reaction to all of this...and once again, we'll see if we can't get it all done in 1500 words or less.

And on a lovely summer's day, what could possibly be better beach reading...what with the redolence of the lazy sea breezes and the surf washing gently up on the shore and all...than 1500 more words on the annexes to the WTO agreement and how it all relates to sneaking a jobs program past recalcitrant Republicans?

I can't think of anything else either, and I can't wait to see you there.

On Doing Better Than 50%, Or, Could More "Made In USA" Mean More Jobs?

fake consultant — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:52:42 GMT

We gotta grow some jobs, and that's a fact, and we probably aren't going to be able to do it with big ol' jobs programs funded by the Federal Government, what with today's politics and all, and that means if this Administration wants to stay in the jobs game they're going to have to find some smaller and more creative ways to do it.

They are also going to have to come up with ideas that are pretty much "bulletproof", meaning that they are so hard to object to that even Allen West and Louie Gohmert will not want to be on record saying "no no no!"; alternatively, solutions that work around the legislative process entirely could represent the other form of "bulletproof-ery".

Well, I have one of those "maybe bulletproof" ideas for you today, and it has to do with how "Made in USA" the things are that our Government buys.

The archer sees the mark along the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows might go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so he loves also the bow that is stable.
--From "The Prophet", by Kahlil Gibran

For the rest of the story to make sense, we'll have to define a term; specifically, "Made in USA".

Most manufacturers in the US have to meet a very stringent standard before they can refer to a product as "Made in USA"; here's how the standard is described by the Federal Trade Commission:

Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

There are special rules, most notably for automobiles (also textiles, wool, and fur), but for the most part everyone else goes by the "all or virtually all" standard when they claim something is "Made in USA".

With one giant exception.

When the Federal Government "Buys American", anything with over 50% US content is considered "Made in USA"; this according to the provisions of, naturally enough, the Buy American Act, 41 USC 10a - c. (Beyond the law, there are also certain Federal Regulations and Executive Orders involved; for now we'll just call it all "the law" and let it go at that.)

Now there doesn't seem to be anything immediately evident in the law that would prevent the Federal Government from purchasing more than 50% US content if we wanted to, and the Big Idea here today is that if government at all levels began to purchase more than 50% US content, we could create more US jobs, now and in the future, and we could do it with a minimum of muss and fuss.

Obviously, there are practical limits as to how far you could take such an approach (for example, good luck buying a Made in USA laptop), and the current law has exceptions that reflect that reality.

But consider this: there are about 450.000 vehicles in the Federal inventory (that does not include military combat vehicles), with roughly half of those belonging to the Postal Service; the General Services Administration buys about 65.000 vehicles a year (they run the Federal motor pool, and that's the other half of the inventory).

Beyond that, think of all the billions upon billions of dollars of more mundane things the government buys every year: janitorial supplies, paper and toner, desks and chairs...well, you get the idea; now imagine if more of all of that was made right here.

One example of how we can do better can be found in Celina, Tennessee, where a garment factory that was doing work for the Air Force found itself unable to compete for a subcontract on $100 million worth of uniforms being made for the TSA; that's because the uniforms were being made in Mexico instead.

If the work was being done here, it could mean about 300 jobs in a town that could really use 'em. (By law, military uniforms are supposed to be made in USA; that's an imperfect process.)

Some things already are restricted: if we don't have a reciprocal trade agreement with a country, they generally can't sell to the US government; China and Taiwan fall into that group.

I'm often guilty of running stories too long, so we're going to cut this short today with a summary...followed by a cliffhanger that should keep you looking forward to Part Two:

Government buys a whole lot of stuff, and we could be buying more of it in the USA, and if we did, it could translate into jobs in places like Celina, Tennessee.

But it's not as simple a picture as you might think, and when we get together next time, we'll talk about the impact of free trade agreements on "Made in USA" purchasing, we'll get the AFL-CIO's reaction to all of this, and, if all goes well, we'll see if we can provide official reaction from the Obama Administration.

And even though you'll be sitting in your seat...you're only gonna need the edge...

Happy Labor Day!

dhaseltine — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:40:24 GMT

Would you cross the picket line?

Joe Dinkin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:03:18 GMT

Cross-posting from the CT Working Families Party Line blog

How would you feel if your employer decided one day to dramatically increase your healthcare costs? How would you feel if the company did this even while it was making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits?

That's the situation for 15,000 unionized Stop & Shop employees across Connecticut. Their contract has expired, and Stop & Shop is playing hardball, citing the recession as a reason to cut health and pension benefits. But the company - part of a multinational conglomerate - is actually doing quite well these days.

Stand with the workers and tell Stop & Shop to treat their employees with the dignity they deserve.

Tell Stop & Shop they need to give workers a fair deal.

Please help spread the word by sharing on Facebook or forwarding this email.
Stop & Shop workers are lucky to be part of a union that's been able to negotiate decent benefits. No one wants to go out on strike - but if Stop & Shop won't negotiate fairly, it's the only tool workers have to protect their standards and hold off a race to the bottom.

Even with the ailing economy, the company's profits are healthy. In the third quarter of 2009 (the most recent figures available), the company posted 238 million pounds (around $371 million).

That must be why they can afford to hire "replacement workers" (aka, strike-breakers). And get this - the pay they are advertising to recruit strike-breakers is $3 per hour higher than what they pay their actual employees! They're doing so well they're expanding and buying new stores. That's outrageous!

As for me, I'm standing with the workers. If they have to strike to protect their benefits I'm not crossing a picket line.

By telling Stop and Shop how important this is to you as a customer, you can make sure the company knows that they should bargain a fair contract rather than forcing a strike.

Click here to send an email message to the company's Consumer Relations Department.

Tell them that it is just wrong to use a bad economy to bully employees into concessions - at a time when company profits are strong as ever.

Then help us pass the word along. You can click here to share on Facebook, or forward this email along.

Labor's Labor Day Challenge for Wal-Mart

WakeUpWalmart — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:22:19 GMT

This Labor Day, Wake Up Walmart, along with a large coalition of labor, environmental and community groups, are challenging Walmart to live up to their PR promises and join us in supporting the American Values Agenda for Change at Walmart.

To help with the effort, Wake Up Wal-Mart is airing two TV ads in major cities. Check out the first here and the second below the fold:

The coalition includes: AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Sierra Club, Campaign for America's Future, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Consumers League, AFSCME, American Rights at Work, Communications Workers of America, Interfaith Worker Justice, LIUNA, National Labor Coordinating Committee, Service Employees International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Auto Workers, United Farmer Workers and United Steel Workers.

The American Values Agenda for Change at Walmart issues a direct challenge to Walmart in five key areas: worker rights, quality jobs, equal opportunity, corporate responsibility and a healthy environment and lays out the next steps for how the coalition, led by the UFCW, will hold Walmart accountable for those challenges.

Will Walmart live up to their PR on Health Care this time?

WakeUpWalmart — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:10:41 GMT

There has been a lot of talk this week about the surprising move by Walmart to publically support President Obama’s health care reform plan, supposedly positioning themselves as a leader in the fight to bring health care to all Americans. As we mentioned in a post on our blog yesterday, this might be easier to swallow if Walmart had any history of leading by example. Instead, they usually do just the opposite.

Given Walmart’s long record of trying to build a positive reputation on ineffective work-arounds to health care coverage for employee, the recent revelations about sacrificing quality for cheap perescription drugs, and their deceptive PR campaign that severely overstated their workers’ health care coverage, it’s not hard to understand our skepticism. [get the details in the extended entry]

Despite all of their feel-good rhetoric, the reality is that nearly half of Walmart’s 675,000 employees – not to mention hundreds of thousands of children of these employees - remain without health care. The situation is not much better for the employees who are covered by Walmart’s plan, as highlighted by a Baltimore doctor in a letter to the editor in the Baltimore Sun. The submission details just how bad that coverage is for patients and doctors. Here is a short excerpt:

“I have several Wal-Mart employees as my patients. I can in all honesty declare that Wal-Mart, a wealthy corporation, for years got away with providing its employees no health care coverage at all or the type of coverage from which doctors could barely eke out payments.
Out of pocket expenses for patients are outrageous with this coverage. Hand me a Wal-Mart health insurance card, and I will let out a spontaneous sigh of exasperation because I know from experience what lies ahead is a runaround for meager compensation after I have delivered all the services.”

While we would love to think that Walmart has seen the light and is onboard to help every American attain the health care they deserve, we tend to agree with this fed up doc that “Wal-Mart is an image conscious opportunist.”

Stay up to date with the campaign against Walmart’s destructive policies at www.wakeupwalmart.com.

The Coming Battle for Jobs and Recovery

catchlightning — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:52:47 GMT

cross-posted from Daily Kos

This is the third in a series of diaries which began with For a Union of the Unemployed and A Call to Organize: CREATEJobsNow!

Another 787,000 Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed last month, and the unemployment rate increased to 9.4%. 14.5 million Americans are unemployed, more than at any time during the Great Depression. Add the 9.1 million underemployed and the 2.2 million "discouraged" workers and there are now an astonishing 25.8 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.

The critical need to re-employ America is not yet being addressed on the scale required to meet this challenge. But there is good news. Major organizing efforts are underway to build both the grassroots movement and the broader coalition that will be needed in the coming battle for jobs and economic recovery.
The day after the May unemployment report was released, the New York Times editorial News From the Jobs Front concluded:

The Obama administration has been on top of relief efforts, extending and enhancing unemployment and public health benefits and providing a big, early dose of fiscal stimulus (though more will probably be needed).
It has been less vigorous, so far, in its vision and plan for the future. If a jobs recovery is left to its own devices, we could repeat the pattern of the last recession and recovery, in which economic growth resumed but never really benefited most working Americans in terms of pay, wealth or sustainable upward mobility. That would be tragic.

Except, unlike past recessions, an actual recovery from this one requires a substantial jobs plan. Indeed, the magnitude of the employment crisis itself threatens to swamp the modest stabilization that's been aided by the early stages of the recent stimulus plan. As economist Paul Krugman described in his column June 14, "unemployment is very high and still rising", while the economy remains stuck in a "liquidity trap" with a continuing "plunge in private borrowing".

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has helped, somewhat, to stave off what would otherwise have been an unemployment tsunami in the public sector. And while many states and municipalities still face significant cuts in jobs and services, the stimulus has served to offset some of the worst effects of state and local budget crises. As such, it has helped provide a degree of economic stabilization, while extending and modestly increasing unemployment benefits for many.

In short, the stimulus may have done just enough to put the brakes on what was a slide toward a possible full-blown depression, but not enough to foster a robust economic recovery. Far from it. And this is before the coming round of massive layoffs in the auto industry and its suppliers shows up in the unemployment numbers in the coming weeks and months.

As columnist Bob Herbert wrote on May 25

I'm not sure that the catastrophic job losses of this recession, the worst since the Great Depression, have really sunk into the public's consciousness. And that would mean that the ground has not been prepared for the kind of high-powered remedies needed to get the economy back into some kind of reasonable shape.

So how do we prepare that ground? What ongoing organizing efforts can we build on and what are the kinds of policy initiatives that will need to be pursued in the coming battle for jobs and recovery?

The Health Care Paradigm

Right now, due to the immediacy of the legislative agenda and the urgency of the issue, those efforts are focused primarily on the battle for real health care reform. Because health care, the economy and unemployment are all inextricably linked, fixing health care will benefit the unemployed and help boost the economy. The process, moreover, of organizing the coalition needed to win the health care battle has already set in motion the very forces that will be required in the coming battle for jobs and recovery.

On June 1 a newly formed coalition effort supporting a real health care plan with a public option was announced in Washington. The coalition plans to spend $82 million on advertising, advocacy and outreach to help ensure that the political climate is created to win real health care reform this year.

The historic scope of the coalition, including labor, progressive, policy advocacy and various rights organizations, itself provided an immediate jolt to the politics on the issue. The next day President Obama released a letter to Senators Ted Kennedy and Max Baucus detailing his principles for health care reform which included this clear endorsement of a public insurance plan option:

I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

The hugely positive popular response was enhanced by the labor-led health care coalition's linking supporters with the DNC's Organizing for America site promoting tens of thousands of sign-ups for thousands of health care house meetings nationwide. Encouraged by the momentum generated by the growing coalition effort, the President went to Green Bay, Wisconsin for the first of a series of major town hall meetings, putting himself squarely on the side of the coalition for real reform, including a public health insurance plan option, and urging everyone to contact their Senators and Representatives in Congress.

Congress is definitely going to get that message when thousands rally for health care at the Capitol on June 25.

All of this is to describe precisely the confluence of efforts that will be needed in the coming battle for jobs and the economy. And there are other signs that this kind of labor-led alliance is coming together elsewhere.

Similar coalition efforts are already working to promote the Employee Free Choice Act,
including the alliances being built by American Rights at Work.

To spearhead the cause of real immigration reform another broad coalition effort, Reform Immigration FOR America, was launched on June 3.

The kind of coalition movement we discussed in the previous posts in this series is not only possible -- it's already forming as the leaders of major union, progressive and civil rights organizations join together in unified campaigns. But the other essential component is effective grassroots organizing, combining field and online outreach.

Building the Grassroots - Organizing Unemployed and non-union workers

One of the organizations that has had great success bringing together employed and unemployed, union and non-union is Working America the grassroots outreach and organizing affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

Working America has already recruited more than 2 million members through its field and online organizing efforts, many of them unemployed or non-union workers. Dan Heck, Regional Director for Working America in Ohio, reports they are now ramping up their unemployed worker organizing and have signed up 800,000 members in Ohio alone, doubling the effective membership of the AFL-CIO in the state.

Local labor councils in Ohio are holding regular meetings of unemployed workers. As a pilot program they are also planning action-oriented meetings of unemployed workers, initially, in 10 cities across the country. Working in concert with local grassroots organizations, Dan reports they are "generating hundreds of calls a week" to State Senators in Ohio to support education initiatives to bring jobs to Ohio workers.

Organizing non-union and unemployed workers has also resulted in more than 7,000 individual, handwritten letters to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) in support of the Employee Free Choice Act in Arkansas.

I've joined Working America and you should too. And throw them a few bucks while you're at it. Not only are they building the grassroots movement that will be needed to take on the coming battle for jobs and the economy, but their combination of phone, field and internet organizing is exactly what's needed -- on an even bigger scale.

Working America's Unemployment Lifeline offers online information on:

Unemployment compensation
Nutritional aid
Utility assistance
Child care
Emergency medical assistance
and personal Ask an Expert assistance from a knowledgeable organizer.

The Working America blog, which features Daily Kos contributing editor Laura Clawson, offers a look at important news as well as stories from the grassroots, giving workers themselves a powerful voice.

Similarly SEIU has taken a leading role in aggressively reaching out beyond its own 2 million members to actively engage millions more both online and in communities across the country.

SEIU's Change that Works and Economic Recovery campaigns unite the efforts of both union and progressive local organizers behind precisely the three-pronged issue strategy advocated in this series:

Our Goals
* Pass an economic recovery plan to keep people working, create millions of new jobs, and maintain services for our communities.
* Pass the Employee Free Choice Act to ensure that workers, not just CEOs, can benefit from the economic progress they help create and advocate for the best quality for those they serve.
* Fix our healthcare system so that it lowers costs and provides quality, affordable health care for all.

The SEIU Blog and online action alerts provide up-to-the-minute news and mobilizations, such as the email blasts directed at CNBC for comparing the Iran election to the Employee Free Choice Act.

So while the immediate focus is on health care, the Employee Free Choice Act and immigration reform we must look ahead, knowing the urgent need to re-employ America, with productive jobs, with good incomes and promising futures.

What is to be done? First, we'll talk about the organizational side -- both "top-down" and "bottom-up". Then, we'll discuss the policy side -- because there's no "silver bullet", no single legislative initiative that could adequately address the unemployment crisis.

To prepare for the coming battle for jobs and recovery, labor and progressive leaders simply need to recognize that they will have to come together on this issue, as they have on health care, Employee Free Choice and immigration reform.

Right now labor should be ramping up its staffing of both field and online organizers. We need more people across the country like Dan Heck and his teams of field organizers in Ohio. And we need more people like Laura Clawson, Tim Tagaris, Seth Michaels, Michael Whitney, Richard Negri, Tom Wells and Jason Lefkowitz (to name just a few) working online to bring us the news from the frontlines.

And labor, progressives and allied economic policy groups should also be ramping up research and legislative efforts to help initiate and support the array of programs that will be needed.

There's No Silver Bullet

One thing that will make the coming battle for jobs and recovery difficult is that there's no one program, no single piece of legislation capable of adequately addressing the employment crisis. Instead, solutions must be found in an array of bold initiatives. Let's look at just a few.

In a post on his blog last month Robert Reich examined "What Industrial Policy Should Be":

Industrial policy ought to fill in where the market fails -- providing basic research to help spur new technologies and industries, reducing the negative side-effects of the market (such as carbon pollution), and easing the adjustment of workers and communities out of older industries that are shrinking toward new ones. Ideally, these three parts of industrial policy would be synchronized so the new technologies and industries address negative side-effects while also creating opportunities for communities and workers to gain new employment.
Much of the industrial Midwest desperately needs new technologies and industries to take the place of the shrinking U.S. auto industry, and workers who have been (or are about to be) laid off need help transitioning to those new jobs. Could chunks of the old auto industry be adapted to producing high-speed rail or, more generally, highly-efficient people-moving systems of the future or, even more generally, green technologies that support such systems?

A number of prominent economists, such as those listed in an online press release from Dean Baker's Center for Economic and Policy Research, have begun calling for a third round of stimulus to boost the economy. Among them is the Economic Policy Institute's Lawrence Mishel who said recently:

"we must reexamine our policies and enact further public investments as stimulus, provide relief to the many families that are and will be struggling, and use government to directly generate jobs in areas where private sector activity is especially weak."

In their in-depth piece entitled The Jobs Solution for The Nation on April 2, Leo Hindery, Jr. and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. provided a detailed set of plans and proposals designed to create the millions of jobs now required to re-employ America and generate a robust recovery.

We need an all-encompassing strategy on the massive scale we used at Normandy to win the war in Europe and that we later had behind the sweeping Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe's broken economies. This time, however, our big-thinking strategy must be about creating the 24 million jobs that are missing so that American workers will be nearly fully employed.

In their conclusion they wrote:

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs--24 Million More of Them, in Fact
The need for jobs creation is paramount and massive, and the task of meeting this need will be even greater. FDR had to find 13 million jobs during the worst of the Great Depression, and in 2009 we need to find 24 million, albeit in a much larger economy. But still, that's 24 million jobs!
Roosevelt knew that the answer for his administration would not be found only in the private sector, as ideal as that would have been and as much of a believer in capitalism as he was. The answer today won't be found only there, either.
In addition to the public jobs programs for the nation's youth and the training and apprenticeship programs that we have already called for, the administration and Congress also need to help create millions of jobs for the nation's adults: those who are young, approaching retirement and who were once retired but now need to go back to work.
Specifically, we need a large-scale program to create short- and medium-term jobs that complement those of the companies receiving stimulus-related contracts and subsidies, until these jobs can migrate to the private sector. With thoughtful use of tax policies, we must do everything we can to retain and strengthen the relatively few manufacturing jobs that remain. We need a program that emulates the best of the WPA and the TVA, and then we have to export this program to all fifty states. And we need aggressive public-sector employment initiatives, especially based around infrastructure construction and K-12 education.
None of the actions we call for will be easy to accomplish, nor will they come cheap. Yet we need all of them so that American workers can be fully employed in jobs that pay fair wages. We need them to rebuild, and sustain, the great commercial engines that fostered the broad American middle class of the past century and underpinned the global prosperity of the past quarter-century. We need them to bring an end to America's sorry status as the world's largest debtor nation. And we need them for our national and economic security.

One of their proposals was for a new-style WPA-type program, a call echoed recently by bonddad and New Deal democrat in Do We Need Another WPA?
It is, perhaps, only such a program that could begin to alleviate the crushingly ill effects of this recession on the less-skilled, youth, many minorities, the rural and urban poor documented in the NYT OpEd this week by Barbara Ehrenreich in Too Poor to Make the News.

Back in February Bob Herbert wrote

What Americans need is new employment on a massive scale, and one of the most effective ways to get that started is to invest extraordinary amounts in the nation's infrastructure, to rebuild America in a way that creates a world-class platform for a sustainable 21st-century economy.
President Obama's stimulus package is just a first step in the government's effort to stabilizing the hemorrhaging economy. It contains infrastructure spending, but nothing comparable to the vast amounts it will take to make the desperately needed improvements.

A critical component of any major infrastructure plan to create jobs and long-term growth is the need for a massive Rural Broadband program -- one that could help alleviate the toll that unemployment has taken in rural America.

On the legislative side, some Democrats have been taking bold initiatives to foster large-scale infrastructure programs. In Our Crumbling Foundation columnist Herbert recently highlighted legislation introduced by Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro for a National Infrastructure Development Bank with broad support:

Washington, D.C. - Representatives Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3), Keith Ellison (MN-5), Anthony Weiner (NY-9) and Steve Israel (NY-2) introduced the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2009 with strong support from a diverse coalition including, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; SEIU; National Construction Alliance; Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; American Society of Civil Engineers; Campaign for America's Future; and Policy Link, as well as Felix Rohatyn, investment banker and author of "Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now;" and Bernard L. Schwartz, Chairman and CEO of BLS Investments.
The National Infrastructure Development Bank Act would fund and create a bank that would direct public and private dollars toward infrastructure projects of national or regional significance - a proposal included in the Obama Administration's budget, as well as the Budget Resolution.

Such a National Infrastructure Bank has long been supported by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).

"President Obama co-sponsored our infrastructure bank legislation as a senator and endorsed the idea during his campaign. So, I'm hopeful to see action on the bill this year," Dodd said.

"A national infrastructure bank would ensure that important projects receive funding -- creating a new funding stream and competitive process for wastewater systems or any other project that offers the greatest economic and environmental benefits that no community can afford to rebuild on its own," he said in a speech at North Carolina State University.

"The Infrastructure Bank would encourage regional approaches to infrastructure needs, encouraging private sector participation to fund big projects outside of formulas," he also said according to a copy of the speech.

The fact that significant job-creating infrastructure legislation can be crafted and passed in the Congress was proven recently when the House overwhelmingly passed the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act (H.R. 2187). Sponsored by Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), it passed the House on May 14 by a vote of 275 to 155 with 24 House Republicans voting in favor! The bill authorizes $6.4 billion in grants in 2010, and similar amounts in each of the next five years, to promote "green" school renovation and modernization projects, including clean energy and HVAC systems in public schools across the country.

Similar legislation has recently been introduced in the Senate (S. 1121) by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senate aides have reported it will be co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). At a recent Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on education with Sec. Arne Duncan, Sen. Harkin indicated he may pursue the program's first year funding in the Congressional appropriations process.

Let's Get to Work

Much more needs to be done. The toll this recession is taking on working families, on incomes, on the unemployed and underemployed, the rural and urban poor, is simply intolerable. America desperately needs a real economic recovery, one that is powered by investments to create millions of good-paying productive jobs.

A concerted effort by the emerging coalition of labor, progressives, rights organizations and liberal economic policy advocates is what's needed in the coming battle for jobs and recovery.

BREAKING: CT POST endorses paid sick days

Joe Dinkin — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:46:43 GMT

Thanks to all of the organizations and activists around the state who've been supporting the paid sick days bill. Now the media is finally getting the message: paid sick days protects working families and improves public heath. And it's smart business too.

Paid sick leave should be required
by CT Post Staff
No employee in Connecticut should fear losing a job for staying home when sick.
And employers should recognize that over the long haul their enterprises are likely to be more productive while in the care of healthy employees.
...
Allowing workers a reasonable cushion for those few times a year they are truly ill is not only the humane thing to do, it makes business sense, too.

The Appropriations Committee will be voting on the paid sick days bill on Monday.

If you haven't yet, please take a moment to send the members of Approps an email asking them to vote yes.

Take action here:
http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/t/2885/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2725

And help spread the word!

2009 Legislative Vote Tallies

Barbara Richards — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:10:32 GMT

If you would like to see how your legislators voted on some important issues in this year's session you can go to http://www.electionvolunteers.org and click on "Committee Vote Tallies 2009"

At this time the votes included are:

- Judiciary Committee - Abolish the Death Penalty
- Government Administration and Elections Committee - Election Day (Voter)Registration
- Labor and Public Employees Committee - (Prohibiting) Captive Audience Meetings
- Labor and Public Employees Committee - Paid Sick Leave for Employees
- Public Health Committee - Sustinet Health Plan (proposed by the Universal Health Care Foundation)

More vote tallies will be added later. Comments suggesting others would be welcome.

Who's Really Working for the Working People?

mikect — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:56:50 GMT

The Democratic Party often promotes itself as the party of "working people." The boldness of the Party's accomplishments is debatable, but by the yardstick of the Connecticut AFL-CIO's legislative scorecard, Democrats clearly come out ahead. In 2007-2008, Dems scored, on average, 94% in the House and 84% in the Senate. Republicans, in contrast, scored 32% in the House and 40% in the Senate.

Labor either had an modest agenda or two very good years in the House, because most Democrats there had 100% records, producing a list too long to acknowledge. In the Senate, however, only one Democrat in office for the whole two-year period, Ed Gomes, had a perfect voting record. (All others voted against an ethics reform bill, but most scored high otherwise.)

Every Republican in the state scored below 60%. The worst of the worst -- those with scores under 25% -- along with a list of their current Democratic challengers, are:

Worst Republicans	Score 07-08	Dem challenger 08
Rep. Mike Alberts	14%	Sherri Vogt
Rep. Clark Chapin	14%	unopposed
Rep. Anthony D'Amelio	14%	Stephen Ferrucci
Rep. Lawrence Miller	14%	Cheryl Jansen
Rep. Craig Miner	0%	Nick Creed
Rep. John Piscopo	0%	Joe Arcuri
Rep. David Scribner	20%	David Stevenson
Rep. John Stripp	20%	unopposed
Rep. Kevin Witkos (running for Senate)	20%	Arthur House (Senate)

Legislators who were not in office for the entire period or who are not running for office in 2008 are not included above. Notably, new Republican Senators Rob Kane & Rob Russo each scored at 20% in their first session.

Unfortunately, two of these worst legislators are unopposed by any Democrat. Republicans who are unchallenged tend to get away with anything.

Craig Miner and John Piscopo, the most right-wing legislator in the state, had the worst labor records in 2007-08, scoring perfect zeros. They also have among the worst lifetime records.

More on the Democrats and labor issues below.

Democrats
Several Democrats currently running for re-election scored below 75%:

Worst Democrats	Score 07-08
Rep. Terry Backer	71%
Rep. Jeffrey Berger	67%
Rep. Shawn Johnston	17%
Rep. Tom Kehoe	67%
Sen. Eileen Daily	71%
Sen. Paul Doyle	71%
Sen. Joan Hartley	57%
Sen. Andrew Maynard	67%
Sen. Gayle Slossberg	71%

As he has on numerous other scorecards, Rep. Shawn Johnston (Killingly, Putnam & Thompson) ranks as the worst Democrat in the House, scoring lower than nearly all Republicans on worker issues. He is now the House Democrat with the worst lifetime labor record. He edged out House Speaker and Gubernatorial candidate Jim Amann, who had previously held that distinction. (Amann's relatively poor record did not prevent the Iron Workers leadership from endorsing and praising him.) Johnston is guaranteed re-election this year, as he was cross-endorsed by local Republicans, who recognize an ally when they see one.

Sen. Paul Doyle (Cromwell, Middletown, Newington, Rocky Hill & Wethersfield) has the worst lifetime labor record of any Democrat, at 50%.

Issues

Among labor's legislative wins:

Minimum wage hike
Funding for teacher's retirement fund
Establishment of clean contracting standards board
Expansion of state employee health care pool to small businesses and nonprofits

Labor losses (only passed one house)

Paid sick leave
Assessment of costs and benefits of state contracts outside CT or the U.S.

Electoral action

The AFL-CIO is canvassing voters this month in selected Congressional and State Senate districts, apparently in support of Joe Courtney, Chris Murphy, George Colli, Mary Ann Handley, Duane Perkins, and Janice Andersen.

Paid Sick Days and Other CT Worker Action Items

mikect — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:38:32 GMT

Four out of ten working people in Connecticut don't have a single paid sick day available to them all year. Workers who feel compelled to show up work slower and get others sick, increasing costs for employers. Those who can't make it to work lose income. About one in four parents with a child under one does not have any paid sick time. All of the top twenty most competitive economies in the world - except the U.S. - guarantee paid sick days for workers.

In Connecticut, a network of organizations coordinated by Working Families has launched the Everybody Benefits campaign, which backs Senate Bill 217, designed to guarantee that workers in medium to large companies can earn a few days of sick time each year. Last year, the bill passed the Senate, but never got a vote in the House. This week it passed the Judiciary Committee and moves to the Senate.

What you can do:

Send your state legislators an Apple Gram
Ask Senate President Pro Tempore Don Williams to make paid sick days a priority
Contribute to the campaign

See below for more action items and news about Connecticut workers.

The right to organize: The CT AFL-CIO is asking for calls this weekend to Rep. Denise Merrill and Senator Toni Harp, Co-Chairs of the Approprations Committee in support of Senate Bill 489, "An Act Concerning The Right to Organize for All Workers." They are asking that Merrill and Harp put the bill on the agenda for the Monday Appropriations Committee meeting and call for an early discussion of the legislation. Here's a fact sheet on the bill.
Pay equity for women: Participate in Pay Equity Day on April 22, coordinated by the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. Attend a news conference with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (a sponsor of the federal Paycheck Fairness Act) or come to the Pay Equity Coffeehouse at Cosi's cafe in West Hartford.
Lobby Day: A multi-union Labor Lobby Day is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16 at the Legislative Office Building. Here's the SEIU agenda.
Organizing Foxwoods: The United Food and Commercial Workers Union wants to organize workers at Foxwoods. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has filed a petition to organize earlier in the week. On May 1, about 310 Foxwoods physicial plant workers will vote on whether to join the International Union of Operating Engineers. Casino dealers have voted to join the UAW, and the vote was upheld by a federal judge.
Better food service: Parents, students, and AFSCME are calling for the New Haven Board of Alderman to cut ties with Aramark, the private food service contractor, because of mismanagement and poor food quality. There is a rally on Monday, April 14 at 4:30.
Having no sick days is good for you. Anyone else notice the crude "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" rap in CBIA's latest TV ad and these kinds of statements?
"[O]ur company is good for our employees and for Connecticut's economy."

"You Don't Want A Rookie"

Matt Browner Hamlin — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:20:08 GMT

Connecticut Fire Fighter Chris Tracy came up to Manchester, New Hampshire last Friday to be there for the roll-out of the International Association of Fire Fighters endorsement of Chris Dodd for President. After the event, he talked to a local TV reporter. Here's part of the interview:

Chris Tracy: ...we've had to use all together too often. With the SAFER Act they've provided equipment and funds back in the Nineties, before 2001. With the FIRE Act, rather the FIRE Act then, the SAFER Act later that helped us staff our equipment, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the energy, and the protection of the Constitution. Terrific, important issues that Americans understand. Here's the thing, you don't want a rookie to run the fire when you see your house on fire, and we have a seasoned professional here and we want him in the White House.

America's Professional Fire Fighters know that Chris Dodd has the experience and the bold ideas needed to keep America safe and secure while restoring our standing in the world. He's their pick to sit in the Oval Office in 2008 and Tracy does a great job articulating why Dodd's proven record of legislative leadership and success is the best recipe for the Presidency come January, 2009.

Thinking about the Real Labor Day

malachi — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 05:10:57 GMT

Another Labor Day draws to a close. A holiday more remembered as the "Last day of summer" and the start of another school year then for what gives it its name. Labor Day is a time of reflection for the work of American Laborers and more specifically the American Labor Movement. While there are those who will give us an abbreviated version of why we celebrate today, it's important to remember why we are here and why we must remain vigilant towards political AND economic power.

While most of us know the first Monday in September as Labor Day, here and around the world Labor Day is historically May 1st. Also known as May Day. Why the change? Well since I'm currently a history major...a little history lesson.

More below the fold...
Historically the "first" Labor Day was held in New York by a group known as the Knights of Labor. Today this is the AFL-CIO. Despite the historical connection, and the attempt to call this the cause of today's Labor Day, this was hardly the motivation for a national holiday. Where did it all begin? In 1884 the Knights had decided that after May 1st of that year the American worker would not work for more than a 40 hour work week: 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Sound Familiar?

Two years later, on May 1st, the Knights, and other local labor unions, staged the largest strike in U.S. and at that point world history. Almost 400,000 workers went on strike to demand a 40 hour work week. American businesses, who mostly considered laborers as products to be bought and sold, did not want to lose the advantage they had in bargaining power over their workers. So they went to the Federal Government and asked them to put down the strike.

President Grover Cleveland was more than willing to comply. The result was less than optimistic. During an attempted break up of a demonstration in Chicago, a bomb went off killing several strikers and local police. The leaders of the Chicago labor movement were arrested, tried, and convicted in a kangaroo court for what became known as the Haymarket massacre. They would later be pardoned but not before one of them killed himself.

Several years later the country faced the greatest depression in its history. In 1894 workers at the Pullman Train Car Company went on strike to demand better wages and working conditions. This strike gained notoriety for its leader, a future presidential candidate named Eugene Debs. Cleveland was once again asked to put down the strike. Only this time as he faced reelection he needed labors support to get the Democratic nomination. The strike was broken up, Debs would be later tried and found not guilty as a national hero, but not before a concession was made by Cleveland who gave labor a national holiday. Fearing a backlash from business over adopting the international May 1st, Cleveland borrowed from the Knights of Labor and dedicated the first Monday in September.

Postscript to that story: Cleveland lost the nomination anyway to William Jennings Bryan who was nominated from the floor of the Democratic Convention after his famous "Cross of Gold" speech. Just goes to show Triangulation doesn't work in the 19th century either.

Now some of you might ask why is all this important? Isn't it just good enough to know that Labor got a day for itself? You don't hear veterans complaining about Veterans Day being in a cold month like November or descendents of President's Lincoln and Washington complaining they have to share a day. I suppose it's not that important except for one small detail.

To make sure that no one in this country remembered May Day political groups since the twenties, and almost every President since Dwight Eisenhower, has declared May 1st to be two important holidays. The first is Law Day: a recognition of the role our laws and system of justice play in protecting our freedom. The second is Loyalty Day: A reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States and for the recognition of the heritage of American Freedom. Loyalty day in particular was created by executive order and has been reaffirmed by many of Eisenhower's successors...including George W. Bush.

Here's my point. Why does America, a country founded on the notion of the people and not the king as Sovereign, need a day for us to reaffirm our loyalty to ourselves? Why are we made to forget the historical significance of labor in this country and a particular political philosophy around the world? How come our government doesn't want to recognize a belief system that placed greater value on labor than as simply goods to be bought and sold? I have my own answer but I'll let you the reader think about it. I know this is rather long and boring and a little preachy. I'll understand if you don't read this. Those that do. Think about it.

And just in case you're wondering if I'm being a little two x-files for you consider this. Last year thousands of illegal immigrants came out all across the country to protest President Bush's immigration proposal and to demand recognition of Hispanic immigrants in the political and economic sphere's of American society. What day was that protest held on....May 1st!

Enjoy the start of a new school year.

Guerrilla Vlogger: Edwards in Portsmouth, NH.

mbair — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:42:55 GMT

cross-posted at dailykos

Last Sunday evening at the end of a long, hot, winding road through the state the Edwards family wrapped up their bus tour of NH. They were greeted by well over a thousand people at a Town Hall event on the banks of the river at lovely Prescott Park in downtown Portsmouth NH.

His remarks were sharp, clear and passionately delivered to an enthusiastic crowd.

He threw down the gauntlet on universal health care in the field and challenged the entire Democratic party on financing campaigns through lobbyist money. He presented the voters in attendance not only with his vision for change in this country, but he gave us a very clear picture of the kind of America that he wants us to create together. The grassroots are not only central to the campaign in this vision, but they need to be central going forward from January 20, 2009.

The full Q and A is now posted also: click here to see all of that tape.

Video: John Edwards in Portsmouth: Intro (5:22)

Elias is a Korean War veteran and he's an active advocate for vet issues. He introduces Elizabeth in this clip and tells us why he's supporting Edwards for President. This clip also contains about a minute of the whole family arriving.

Elias is a supporter today because Edwards and the campaign not only listened to the vets at the highest level, but they came up with a plan that Elias can support.

I hope he can work with it too, since that's the deal with the campaign. We have to make it work out there in the country and not just in the context of the election either.

Good luck Elias, I'm counting on you.

Video: Elizabeth Edwards in Portsmouth (5:00)

The story of Steve. She looked radiant and believe it or not she also looked well rested.

You have a great responsibility in this process because the rest of the nation looks to you to determine who we should be nominating.

They know that you have a chance that they're never going to have.

That is to look these candidates in the eye, to actually ask them a question to judge their demeanor, the depth of their answers and to determine who is the best nominee for our party. The rest of the country doesn't get to do it, you get to do it and it's why we honor this process.

John goes, everyplace he goes, he makes certain he answers your questions no matter what the forum or environment so that you have an opportunity to do what you're responsibility is...

Our responsibility is to make sure that you know everything he stands for.

Then she told us about Steve, the video-grapher and NH Republican state party operative assigned to the Edwards beat last time around. He taped them everywhere and they became friendly, naturally.

And he listened to John... listened to him and made an evaluation... and after listening to John ... and listening to questions coming from every quarter, at the end of that process Steve admitted to me that he was going to be voting for John.

So if we can convince someone employed by the Republican party certainly we can convince good Democrats that this is the man to support, my husband of thirty years, John Edwards.

Steve sounds like a real smart guy.

Update : Speaking of "respecting the process" I found this article after I posted the diary:
More Candidates to Skip Rogue Dem States

Video: John Edwards: Change in America (3:57)

It's wonderful to see such a great crowd. Here's what I think, I think that we need big ideas in America again. I think we need bold change not little change, and I mean bold and substantive change - not the rhetoric of change.

I believe the system in Washington, DC is corrupt and it's rigged. It's rigged against you. (applause) Rigged by insurance companies (more applause) drug companies (applause) and oil companies (still more applause) their lobbyists. They stand between you and what America needs.

Here he talks about confronting the entrenched interests head on. He's often said since the beginning of the summer that: "You can not negotiate at the table with these people, you must take their power from them because they will never give it up voluntarily. It will never happen." And he's taken that a step further with this line, "I think that if you give them a seat at the table they eat all the food." But Edwards is now taking the whole issue to a higher level in the stump by fleshing out the vision he has for the movement for change blossoming around the country today. Now we can see why a movement is needed outside the context of a political campaign and he hat tips Hillary here though not by name.

They've killed health care reform once before and they will fight us every step of the way, but we have to bring the American people to confront them.

The President of the United States has to bring the American people to confront them because without it we will not have universal health care, etc... We have to take the system on and we need a candidate and President who has a history of beating these people, fighting them and beating them over and over and over. I've been doing it my whole life. I did it in courtrooms for 20 years.

Edwards has been talking about the change needed in this country for a couple years and it's been a central theme in this campaign, but now, through these remarks, we can clearly see that the need for a real movement for change in this country is a necessity outside the campaign itself; it's now the tool needed to actually govern.

All the candidates talk about change, especially this cycle, and make a case for themselves as the best change agent, but Edwards is saying that even if he is the right person to lead the fight he really can't deliver on anything he's proposing. It's not possible anymore to do the reforms we need in government from the top down on issue after issue today. We need to challenge the entrenched interests on campaign money because they'll be funding the elections forever unless we get campaign finance reform right. We have to confront insurance companies and drug companies directly through our local representatives in Congress because otherwise we'll end up with Hillary care, DOA, or Medicare Part D, written by the lobbyists to protect a vital revenue stream. We have to get more active in the whole process because the confluence of money, politics and lobbyists forms a strong ruling class in this country and they are not going to give up their power willingly. We need to think about a 5 or 10 year process of waging a war to restore accountability and trust in nearly every single one of our government institutions in this country today.

And we need to choose a leader for that movement too.

Send us a president NH. Send us John Edwards. Send us a message and a specific detailed agenda that we can run on and win.

Video: John Edwards: Lobbyists (2:38)

Here we go with this topical discussion and it's a master stroke. In 2004, the Two Americas speech had a discussion about lobbyists and how they corrode the process in DC. About lobbyists he used to say, "we ought to cut them off at the knees." Since that time and in this race in particular, the lobbyist issue has evolved in the message and I think this issue is or at least should be Edwards's ticket to a one on one dialog against Hillary as the change candidate in the mainstream media. I know it will never happen, but it should. Edwards even tips his hat to Obama in this passage:

But where are the places that we need change? Let me start with one very simple but symbolic change. One of the things that I've challenged all the Democratic candidates, this is not about the past, it's about the future, to say: we're not the party of Washington insiders we don't want to represent Washington lobbyists we want to represent the people. And we're going to say from this day forward (smattering of applause) we will never take a dime (applause) from a Washington lobbyist that's what the Democratic presidential candidates should do. (applause)

I'm proud of the fact that I've never taken any money from a Washington lobbyist. Senator Obama has joined me in this campaign, he should be applauded for that. (applause) All of us should do it.

And now I'm going to ruffle feathers even further, not just the Democratic presidential candidates, the Democratic party should say we are done. (applause) We are not taking money from Washington lobbyists. (applause) And I don't know how you feel about this, but I don't personally want to see a bunch of corporate Republicans replaced by a bunch of corporate Democrats. I want to see the power in the government given back to you and we need to take these entrenched interests on together.

Do you need anymore? How could you need more? Okay, we have health care coming up. Scroll with me. Edwards also believes that public financing of elections in this country is the key to the issue and he supports it.

Video: John Edwards: Health Care (2:38)

They have the best health care plan in the race because the Edwards health care plan includes a universal mandate.

So here's where he's picking a fight with the other candidates on health care; they all talk about having universal health care, but can it be universal if millions are excluded?

He draws sharp contrast with the field and turns the page on this issue by presenting the audience with the human face behind the numbers in these proposals.

We have 46 -47 million Americans without health care coverage. Premiums are up 100% over the last 5 or 6 years and anybody who comes to your community, running for president, democrat or republican, if they tell you what their health care plan is your first question should be: is it universal?

Does it actually cover every man and woman in America? Because if it doesn't I want them to explain to you: what man and what woman is not worthy? What man and what woman, what single mom is not entitled to health care coverage? Health care coverage is not a privilege for the privileged but it is a right that ought to be available to every single American.

He also says something amazing here about single-payer, "I have no problem with the system going that way eventually. I think that would be fine." The Edwards health care plan has been criticized because it is not single-payer, but his plan does in fact include a path to a single-payer system in that all Americans are covered and Medicare is an option on every plan provided to you by law, as a right.

Details on the Edwards Universal Health Care Plan for every American are provided in the clip, you can also read them at the website.

Video: John Edwards: Inequality in America (4:41)

A most excellent riff on what is the central and enduring theme to the Edwards message. Poverty, minimum wage, unions, college for everyone, everything is here. It's hard to comprehend sometimes but I see him about once a month at this point and I can see that his stump is changing to include topical material and timely criticism of his opponents, but the stump is also evolving in another way. The current stump has retained the passion and concentration of the message on economic fairness, but now we can see that the need for a movement to change and reform our government also transmits and connects the fairness and morality frame in the overall Edwards message. That was always the way the poverty issue looked to me, but now he's doing it with the message for change too. That's not easy to do, but this part of the speech here has always been the central organizing principle of the whole effort - click on the link and watch a master at the top of his game.

He runs through the remarks here quickly because he needs to get to questions and was running late that day, but he really winds the crowd up once he starts in on the issue of trade agreements:

The first question I will ask on any trade agreement is: is it good for working middle-class Americans? Does it have real labor standards, real environmental standards? Does it have protections against the manipulation of currency? Does it have prohibitions against slave labor, child labor, sweat shops? These are moral issues, these are not just economic issues.

Judging by the response from the "well healed" crowd that night in Portsmouth, they are not just economic issues. Portsmouth is the kind of town with a lot of salmon colored pants, on men, and enjoys a high BMW quotient, but they ate this up.

Send us a President, NH. Send us the Edwards message for transformational change that can restore fairness and opportunity in this country.

Video: John Edwards: Global Warming (3:16)

It's a Gore approved plan, need more?

Edwards has said and he's been saying this for a year now, that:

The next president of the United States needs to ask Americans to be patriotic about something more than war.

When it comes to driving gas guzzlers.

Still need more? How could you need more?

Try the website for the details.

Video: John Edwards: America in the world (5:45)

I don't think George Bush has damaged America's leadership role in the world, I think he's destroyed it. (applause)

And what can we do to change it and what can the next president do to change it.

First we have to reverse the damage and then we're going to have to actually do some good.

Reversing the damage, we've got to end this mess of a war in Iraq. And I want to tell you something about this: that issue is hot and its going to be before the Congress in September. The Congress, they have a mandate from the American people and that mandate was to end this war. There should not be a single funding bill for this war sent to the president that doesn't have a time table for withdrawal. Everyone should have a timetable for withdrawal. And if Bush vetoes it they should send him another with a timetable and if he vetoes it then they should send him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. They should never back down from this president on ... (inaudible over the standing applause)

He actually gets a question from the audience about timetables for Iraq, asked by a 12 year old kid. Only in New Hampshire. A heckler appears in this clip and asks Edwards what we're going to do when they follow us home from Iraq. The guy didn't stick around to ask the question once the Q & A started, but I got a really good shot at him. He was close.

Edwards had a very detailed and honest discussion with a NH voter last month in Dover on Iraq and the Middle East in general. The remarks in Portsmouth did not focus on them, but if you want to hear Edwards on Iraq then check this clip.

The first day that I'm president I will close Guantanamo which is a national embarrassment. No more secret prisons, no more illegal spying on the American people, no more engaging in or condoning torture. This is not America.

I think it's absolutely amazing that a serious candidate for president has to say these things. I mean really, if you think about it.

There is a great opportunity for America to not just end the damage but to do good things in the world again, really.

He gives us a few excellent ideas and then he tells us this:

And it's very much in our selfish interests because there is an entire generation of young people right now in the Muslim world who are sitting on the fence. On one side is al Qaeda and bin Laden, on the other side is us. Which way will they go? That depends on us... If we are meeting our responsibility to humanity, if we are a country that creates hope and opportunity for all people in the world we will pull them to us like a magnet.

That's what America should be again. We should be an example here at home by ending poverty in this country, by standing up for universal health care, by standing up for individual freedoms and individual liberties and being the light for the rest of the world. We can be that country again and we will be that country when I'm president of the United States.

It truly is amazing that a "serious candidate for president has to say these things," but that is exactly the result of 10 years of wedge politics in DC, a fractured and ineffectual media, an administration with nothing but disdain for the sacred freedoms set out in the constitution of this country and a muddled choice for voters on the issues at the ballot box. It wasn't until 2006 that politicians across the country started presenting us with clear distinctions and when we did that as a party, we won. But even if fear and cynicism are a powerful combination it's only a short term strategy because you can't keep people silent and disenfranchised forever. It's long past time that we have a true leader for the people in DC that represents the core values of the Democratic party. It's long past time that we have a clear choice on the ballot that represents the core values of the Democratic party. We have that choice now with Edwards.

Send us a president, NH. Send us John Edwards.

And then came the call the action after the questions:

John Edwards: "Your Country needs you now."

For the details on any conceivable question you might have about the substantive policy positions for this campaign, try the website. The issues page is the best place to start, links to everything are provided in one place.

I'm not associated with the campaign in any way although I do volunteer, but I speak only for myself when blogging. I support Edwards for the nomination and I do all these vlogs as a citizen journalist, as in I'm not paid. I do everything with an ordinary mini-DV, a PC, Movie Maker and free tools available on the web.

See you out there...

Labor Day Weekend: How are CT Laborers Doing?

CaptCT — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:35:38 GMT

Today's Hartford Courant and New Haven Register share the results of the annual Labor Day report issued by Connecticut Voices for Children, which looks at how well Connecticut's economic growth has been trickling down to wage-earners. Apparently, not very well:

The state's wage earners - low, median and high - earned less in real dollars in 2006 than in 2002, the report said.
Real wages for workers in every category are either flat or have declined, the report said. In real wages, someone who earned $18.36 an hour in 2001 earned $17.75 an hour last year, the report said.
"Health care costs are consuming a larger proportion of total compensation," said Hall, citing one reason for stagnant or declining wages. "There seems to be a disconnect between an economy that's doing well and the wages people are being paid."

The gain in lower-paying service jobs has not quite compensated for the loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs.

The state continues to keep shedding manufacturing jobs, although the rate of loss is dropping. Those traditionally well-paying jobs are being replaced by lower-paying service jobs. "That is not a positive direction for our state economy and it is not a situation that is going to right itself," he said.
Things were different in the 1980s, when hourly workers saw real wage growth of 14.9 percent; in the 1990s, low wages dropped, but median wages increased slightly and high wages jumped the most.

The articles point out that these conditions are part of a national trend, and Connecticut Voices for Children say that wage-earners would benefit from a change in priorities:

The group is urging the state's policy-makers to strive for more higher-wage jobs, provide more child care and housing subsidies for low-wage families and invest more in education.

In a separate report issued in July, The Connecticut Department of Labor stated that; "we are now just 4,900 jobs short of our all-time high of 1,700,700 reached in July 2000."

The good news is that we're gaining jobs. The bad news is that although we have just about reached the number of jobs we had six years ago, the wages paid for the jobs being produced are not keeping pace with the cost of living.

Firefighters to Endorse Dodd

Missy's Brother — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:43:34 GMT

http://www.politico....

Chris Dodd's campaign is set this week to announce a quite major labor endorsement: the International Association of Firefighters, according to a source familiar with the plans.
The endorsement comes as something as a surprise. Labor insiders had expected the union, one of labor's big endorsements, to go with one of the front-runners.
But the Connecticut senator is an old ally, and authored what's probably the most important piece of legislation in a decade for the IAFF: The 2000 FIRE Act, which channels federal money to local fire departments.

It's not set in stone yet.

A spokesman for the IAFF said he wasn't familiar with the plans.
Dodd campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan responded only that "We haven't been endorsed by the IAFF."

Employee Free Choice Act dead

Joe Dinkin — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:25:14 GMT

Just wanted to make sure this got mentioned here, even though it's not a strictly Connecticut issue, although it certainly effects many people here. The employee free choice act, one of the top priorities of labor in this year's congressional session, is dead. This bill would have allowed workers to form a union by card-check. The Senate did not reach cloture to end debate and vote. (51-48. They needed 60 votes to force a vote)

Steven Greenhouse from the New York Times:

The bill would have given workers the right to insist on a procedure, known as majority sign-up, that allows employees at a workplace to form a union as soon as a majority of them signed cards saying they wanted one. Under current law, an employer facing a unionization drive can insist on a secret-ballot election. The bill fueled a feverish lobbying battle between business and labor. Corporate lobbyists and their Republican allies asserted that the bill would infringe on workers’ rights by denying employees the right to a secret-ballot election. Union officials and their Democratic allies said the bill was needed to help reverse labor’s decline, because employers often defeat unionization drives by intimidating and firing workers during secret-ballot elections.

60 Million Workers would join a union if given the opportunity. But this bill didn't even get the chance to get a presidential veto. And those 60 million workers can continue to get harassed and intimidated, and never have the option to gain a measure of job security, fair wages, decent benefits, and self-determination in the workplace.

Paid Sick Days Op Ed

Joe Dinkin — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:54:47 GMT

Just wanted to make sure everyone saw the fantastic Op-ed printing in the Courant about Paid Sick Days today. Check it out.

Grant Paid Sick Days

A school bus driver is feeling ill and calls her supervisor in the morning complaining of a migraine headache. The manager tells her that the company does not offer paid sick days and she needs to come in to work anyway. Fearing not only the loss of pay but also the possible loss of her job, she starts her route despite her obvious symptoms - symptoms that impair her ability to drive and imperil the lives of children on her bus.
It's a frightening scenario - and even more so because it is entirely plausible.

The Senate passed the SB 601, the Paid Sick Days bil, last week 23-13. Now we've only got to make sure that the House brings it to a vote in the next two days. Make sure your State Rep. knows this bill is important to you.