IBT News Release:
Teamsters News Link: $6.7 BILLION THREAT: FEDEX WARNS LAWMAKERS OVER UNION LEGISLATION Commercial Appeal (March 25, 2009) FedEx could cancel contracts for $6.7 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.
In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday, the Memphis-based delivery company disclosed that future commitments to buy Boeing 777s are contingent on FedEx Express' continued coverage by the Railway Labor Act. The disclosure serves as a warning to lawmakers seeking to put FedEx Express workers under the National Labor Relations Act, a move seen as helping the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and rival UPS. "It's FedEx political hardball at its finest," said analyst Donald Broughton of Avondale Partners in St. Louis. In a research note Monday, Broughton wrote: "We see FedEx's action as a deft political move that aligns the interests of Boeing and GE with FedEx, and pits the interests of the Teamsters against the interests of the machinist and several other trade unions." Added U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, "It just shows how committed Fred Smith and FedEx are to remaining under the Railway Labor Act. That's a pretty strong shot at the Teamsters, who are a pretty strong force on the other side, as well as UPS. It's a shot across the bow." Cohen was one of the dissenting members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure when it approved the labor provision as part of a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. Cohen said the bill hadn't been scheduled yet for action in the full House or Senate. "We're not threatening Congress," said FedEx spokesman Maury Lane. He added that if Congress targets FedEx Express to boost the company's chief competitor, "then we would have to take decisive action. (The change) could cause extraordinary upheaval. We will not be able to make large-scale investments like purchases of airplanes, if we can't use them." The escape clause applies to 15 planes due for delivery between 2014 and 2019 and an additional 15 options. It doesn't apply to 15 777s due for delivery between 2010 and 2014. Before agreeing to buy 777s from Boeing in 2006, FedEx had planned to buy French-made Airbuses as part of its push to upgrade to more fuel-efficient transoceanic cargo carriers. A Teamsters spokesman said FedEx appeared to be broadening the conflict over the labor law change while enlisting Boeing as an ally. "FedEx apparently is not content with cutting wages, increasing employees' medical insurance premiums and eliminating pension benefits for its employees," said Ken Hall, Teamsters International vice president and director of the package division. "Now it is threatening to leverage a contract to purchase additional aircraft from an American company to blackmail Congress. ... "It is a slap in the face to Congress and the American people. The bill should be evaluated on its merit -- not upon the threat of FedEx to fire another torpedo through the American economy." FedEx announced in January it had renegotiated a deal to buy 777 Freighters from Boeing over the next decade. The escape clause wasn't mentioned at the time. At the time, the company increased its order from 15 planes to 30 and agreed on an option for another 15 planes. Broughton calculated the purchase price at about $225 million per plane. "This plan will create thousands of jobs for Boeing workers, GE workers (who make the jet engines) and workers at hundreds of subcontractors," Broughton wrote. "We find it more than a bit intriguing that now congressmen will have to vote against Boeing, GE and the creation of thousands of unionized jobs for machinists (and several other trade unions) in order to change the labor law status of FedEx in an attempt to possibly help the Teamsters union." FedEx's SEC filing on third-quarter earnings discussed the Boeing agreement, stating: "Our obligation to purchase these additional aircraft is conditioned upon there being no event that causes FedEx or its employees not to be covered by the Railway Labor Act." Under that act, a union such as the Teamsters would have to organize FedEx Express employees nationally, rather than in local bargaining units. Drivers for UPS, FedEx's chief domestic competitor, are largely represented by the Teamsters, but FedEx has fended off organizing attempts for years. The provision in the FAA bill is unrelated to the Employee Free Choice Act, another pro-organized-labor measure making its way through Congress.
IBT News Release: Urge Passage of FAA Reauthorization Act (March 19, 2009 - Washington, D.C.) Teamsters Airline Division Director David Bourne today sent a letter to Sen. John D. Rockefeller and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee respectively, to express appreciation for their support of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
In his letter, Capt. Bourne said the Teamsters support the Obama Administration’s budget request for $800 million for the implementation of NextGen in fiscal year 2010.
Teamsters News:
(March 11, 2009, Washington, D.C.) Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa commended Congress for voting to ban unsafe Mexican trucks as part of the omnibus fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill that passed the Senate today. The House passed the bill last week.
“There is no doubt that Congress has once and for all killed the Bush Administration’s expensive and illegal pilot project to open the border to Mexican trucks,” Hoffa said. The project allowed certain Mexican trucks to travel beyond the 25-mile border zone starting just after Labor Day 2007. Though Congress shut down the project in the 2008 appropriations bill, the Bush Administration ignored the ban, which expired at the end of the fiscal year. “The driving public is put at risk when trucks from Mexico that don’t meet U.S. standards are allowed to roam our highways,” Hoffa said. “The Mexican government has not held up their end of the bargain to meet U.S. standards. Mexican trucks are unsafe and Mexican drivers are not required to meet the same criteria that American drivers must meet to earn a commercial drivers license. It’s long past time to close the border to these unguided missiles.” The program cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million, according to the Washington Post. The Transportation Department’s inspector general reported on Feb. 6 that Mexican trucks made only 1,443 trips beyond the border zone, or about three per day. The cost of the program would therefore be more than $300,000 per trip. The Feb. 6 report gave even more reason to oppose the project. Despite repeated assurances that the federal inspectors would “check every truck, every time” it crossed the border, the report said the Transportation Department couldn’t tell if every truck and driver were checked.
Teamsters News:
(March 9, 2009, Washington, D.C.) The Teamsters, Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition asked an Appeals Court today to review a dangerous Bush-Era Regulation that increased the amount of time truck drivers can spend behind the wheel. The groups also sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking him to begin work on a new Regulation that would reduce truck crashes caused by fatigue. "We have taken this action with the conviction, based on research and scientific data, that longer driving and working hours are unsafe and promote driver fatigue," the letter said. The Rule, which took effect in 2003, was twice thrown out by the Court. It allows truck drivers to drive for 11 hours, one more hour than they were allowed before the 2003 Rule. It allows them to drive as many as 77 hours in seven days or 88 hours in eight days, over 25 percent more than previously. The D.C. Circuit Court's 2004 decision focused on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) failure to address the serious health impact of its rule on the regulated drivers. FMCSA's latest version of the Rule, which followed after the Court threw out an identical 2005 Rule, was issued on Nov. 13, just weeks before President Obama took office. The Rule went into effect on Jan. 19, 2009. "I urge the Obama Administration to change direction on truck safety," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. The last Administration completely disregarded the health and safety of truck drivers. I'm confident President Obama will do better." "Twice now the Court has found wanting the Agency's justifications for this unsafe and unhealthy Rule," said Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, the Public Citizen attorney who represents the four petitioning groups. "Insisting on the same flawed Rule over and over is no substitute for complying with Congress's mandates." "It is illogical and unacceptable that the prior Administration's solution to truck driver fatigue was longer working and driving hours, said Jackie Gillan, vice president for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. "Public health and safety is at stake and there needs to be a new Rule." Added Joan Claybrook, president of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, a member of the Truck Safety Coalition, "The Bush Administration's Rule put industry profits in the driver's seat and public safety in the back seat. This needs to be reversed now."
Teamsters News Release: (March 5, 2009) This week President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The IBT believes Sebelius has been a leader in the fight for quality health care for all Americans. Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s announcement of his nomination of Sebelius:
Teamsters News Link: WORRY GROWS OVER DEMOCRATIC DEFECTIONS ON EFCA The Huffington Post
A senior official involved in getting EFCA passed into law said he was underwhelmed but not surprised by the support being offered for this union priority from the White House and, to a lesser extent, congressional leadership. Part of the issue, he noted, was that the party is in the midst of tackling vast economic challenges, essentially forcing EFCA (and various other key bills) to the backburner. But the new concern was that Republicans may be able to successfully pick off a member of the caucus if the issue comes to a vote. "There are no guarantees that this thing can get past cloture," said the official. And it's not because of Republican opposition, he added. "You've got Pryor and Lincoln who might not support it. There is Baucus, Landrieu, and even Bayh. And then there is Nelson of Nebraska." The possibility of Democratic defection has not gone unconsidered among those charting out the EFCA debates. But with some strategists predicting 59 votes in favor of the bill (once Al Franken is seated) the predominance of focus has been paid to which Senate Republican -- usually Sen. Arlen Specter -- could be convinced to cross party lines to help pass cloture. Democratic leadership has said they want a vote on the matter in late spring or early summer. And with that time frame coming into focus, the lobbying campaign to defeat EFCA appears to be heating up. At the Conservative Political Action Committee, former Speaker New Gingrich let it be known that conservatives "will never forgive somebody who votes for cloture or for passage." On Monday, meanwhile, the New York Times reported that "Republican and business strategists" were focusing their lobbying efforts on "several Democratic senators." And yet, not everyone is convinced that the bill will come to a vote by early summer, especially if internal whip counts show that Democrats don't have the votes for cloture. Right after the election, union officials were adamant that EFCA be considered within the president's first year in office. Now, however, there seems to be a loosening of the deadline. As the SEIU's Andy Stern told the Huffington Post, in a statement that the aforementioned Democrat called "very telling" for its open-ended time frame: "In the end, we have to pass this bill in the House and the Senate. I'm not a congressional strategist, [but] I would say that in the end both houses are going to get to vote. And whatever way makes sense -- where it starts and where it ends is really not that important, as long as in the end everybody understands the importance of getting this job done. Which I believe they do." UPDATE: Newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet, it seems, is another Democrat who is up in the air on the Employee Free Choice Act, having yet to decide his position. And … David Canter, who is running for Congress from Colorado's sixth district, has been "applying pressure on Bennet and the entire Colorado congressional delegation to come out strongly and vocally in support of The Employee Free Choice Act."
(March 2, 2009) Last week was an important one for all Teamsters. In his first address to the United States Congress, President Barack Obama had many promising things to say about plans he has that will make the lives of working men and women much better in future years. Also, U.S. Democratic Representative from California, Hilda Solis, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the United States’ new Secretary of Labor. IBT General President Jim Hoffa had comments about both of these developments. They are printed below.
Teamsters News Release:
(February 24, 2009) As our country falls further into recession, one thing is becoming apparent: America’s working families are financially hurting now more than ever before. It is now up to Congress and the Obama Administration to save the middle class by creating and passing legislation that will revitalize the economy and make the workplace more equal for everyone. With all eyes on the Government, it is imperative that the media accurately report on the issues at hand. Unfortunately, some pundits are guilty of putting a negative spin on important legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act. Media Matters For America is working toward dispelling myths reported by the media by holding the press accountable for their coverage of important issues. By documenting the distortion of issues like the Employee Free Choice Act or the Ledbetter decision, Media Matters For America is able to correct misinformation and allow the public to rebut false claims. Visit Media Matters for daily updates, news clips, blog posts and links to false claims made by the media against economic legislation and other current events.
Teamsters News Link: New York Times With Canadians up in arms over “Buy America” provisions in President Obama's economic recovery package, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning the United States not to back away from its international treaty obligations, Mr. Obama, who will make a day trip to Ottawa on Thursday, is no longer emphasizing the idea of reopening Nafta. Instead, he and his senior advisers are talking up the booming trade relationship between Canada and the United States — the largest trade partnership in the world, the White House says — and limiting their Nafta message to revamping side agreements on environmental and labor protections. In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, the president said there were “a lot of sensitivities right now” about renegotiating trade pacts “because of the huge decline in world trade.” As he tries to right the struggling American economy, Mr. Obama pledged to do so in a way that would enhance, rather than suppress, trade between the two nations. “It's not in anybody's interest to see that trade diminish,” he said. Trade is an issue that has long bedeviled Democrats, and this is especially so for Mr. Obama. Trade has split the party along regional and economic lines, pitting those who see a globalized economy as inevitable and productive against those in economically depressed areas of the nation, like Ohio and Michigan, who see the price of free trade, in lost jobs and declining wages, as simply too high for the American worker to bear. The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, fought hard to pass Nafta, and made many in his party uncomfortable — including, eventually, his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who like Mr. Obama talked of reopening the pact when she was running for president. Now that Mr. Obama is in the White House, he is confronting a climate that makes free trade an even tougher sell — mounting job losses, an economy in deep recession and fresh isolationist pressure from the Democratic-led Congress. Members of Congress inserted the “Buy America” language, requiring public works projects to be built with American-made iron and steel, into the stimulus bill Mr. Obama signed in to law in Denver on Tuesday. At the same time, Mr. Obama is confronting arguments that to further restrict trade would strain relations with other nations and further depress an interconnected global economy. When Canada and the European Union balked over the “Buy America” language, the Obama White House pushed back at Democrats in Congress, demanding that lawmakers soften the requirement with language that says it must be “applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international trade agreements.” So Mr. Obama is walking a delicate path as he heads to Ottawa. “Canadians in particular are free traders, they're part of the global world,” said Paul Cellucci, who was ambassador to Canada in the first term of Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. “They would clearly resist efforts to be protectionist. And for a country where one-third of its gross domestic product is exports to the United States, can you blame them?” At a briefing with reporters on Tuesday, Denis McDonough, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said Mr. Obama intended to use his visit to “underscore the importance of what is already a very robust trading relationship” and to “look for ways to grow on that as it relates to new and entrepreneurial and innovative technologies on energy and green technology.” That is a far cry from the language of Candidate Obama. He said in a Democratic debate last year that the United States should consider leaving Nafta if the agreement could not be renegotiated. And at another point he sharply attacked Mrs. Clinton, his chief Democratic rival, for what he asserted was a shift in her stance on Nafta. “Ten years after Nafta passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America,” Mr. Obama told the crowd at that time. “Well, I don't think Nafta has been good for America — and I never have.” Later, the campaign was caught in a flap over reports that a top economic adviser to Mr. Obama, Austan Goolsbee, had tried to play down the candidate's remarks by assuring Canadian officials that they were “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” The Obama campaign dismissed the reports as untrue.
Teamsters News Link:
In a letter Tuesday, Anna Burger, chairwoman of Change to Win, asked the Financial Services Roundtable to cease all lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and expel any member company that is lobbying against it and has received bailout funds. “At a time when the industry must devote every effort to economic recovery, it is shameful that the Financial Services Roundtable makes lobbying against the right of workers to organize a legislative priority and, worse yet, is using taxpayer-financed TARP subsidies to do so,” Burger writes in the letter, referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents many of the banks that received federal bailout money, did not respond in time for this article. EFCA, otherwise known as “card-check,” would allow workers to organize much more easily into unions. Instead of holding a secret-ballot election, employees could form a union if a majority of them sign petition cards stating their intentions to organize. Unions say the bill is necessary because employers' intimidation of workers who wish to organize has slowed union membership. They also argue if more employees earned collective bargaining rights, they could negotiate for better wages and benefits. Business groups, like the Roundtable, are lobbying against the bill because they say union organizers would harass their employees into joining labor groups. That could lead to more strikes and hurt business as well, they argue. In her letter, Burger scolds not only the Roundtable but two of its member companies — the Principal Financial Group and Bank of America — for lobbying against the legislation. Both financial institutions have applied for or received bailout funds from the federal government to recover from the Wall Street crisis. Legislation that would ban any companies from using bailout funds for lobbying activities is pending in the Senate. The bill is sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Burger's letter was copied to the two most senior lawmakers overseeing the financial-services industry overhaul, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
IBT Headline News
TEAMSTERS PRESIDENT SAYS PLA’S CREATE EFFICIENCY, SAVE MONEY
(February 6, 2009) Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa praised President Obama today for signing an Executive Order allowing the Federal Government to require Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s) on large-scale construction projects. Such agreements are efficient, save money and promote safety and labor standards. “This is yet another reason for working families to be grateful that we have a champion in the White House,” Hoffa said. “Project Labor Agreements are a win-win for everyone involved. Contractors get highly trained, skilled labor with fixed costs, and workers are fairly compensated with their rights and safety protected.” Project labor agreements have been commonly used for more than 60 years on such successful major projects as Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, Kennedy Space Center, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington, and the cleanup of Boston Harbor. Obama’s Order overturns an Order signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 that banned the Federal Government from requiring PLA’s. Teamster News Clip Smiling broadly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the tally, 290 to 135. Forty Republicans voted for the bill, and 2 Democrats voted against it. The roll call ended a two-year odyssey for the child health legislation, which President George W. Bush adamantly opposed on the ground it would lead to “government-run health care for every American.” The Obama White House, battered by a debacle over Tom Daschle's nomination to be secretary of health and human services, exulted in the passage of the bill, saying it showed how much difference an election could make. Mr. Bush vetoed two similar bills, and the House failed to overturn those vetoes. Democrats were so sure of victory on Wednesday that the White House scheduled a signing ceremony before the House even passed the bill. Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “While this bill is short of our ultimate goal of health reform, it is a down payment, and is an essential start.” Ms. Pelosi said that passage of the legislation showed that elections had results. “This is the beginning of the change that the American people voted for in the last election, and that we will achieve with President Barack Obama,” Ms. Pelosi said. But Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, denounced the bill as “a foundation stone for socialized medicine.” Another Republican, Representative Tom McClintock of California, said the children's health program was “slowly replacing employer health plans with government-paid health plans, with spiraling costs to taxpayers.” Since August 2007, the House has voted at least seven times for legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program. Prior efforts were thwarted by the Bush White House, which pressed wavering House Republicans to stand firm against the legislation. The program, created with bipartisan support in 1997, is intended for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private health insurance. The new bill originated in the House. On Wednesday, the House accepted minor changes made by the Senate, where the bill was approved last week by a vote of 66 to 32, with support from 9 of the 41 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will enable states to cover more than four million uninsured children by 2013, while continuing coverage for seven million youngsters. The bill will increase tobacco taxes to offset the increase in spending, estimated at more than $32 billion over four and a half years. In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens. Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay. The bill requires states to verify that people covered by the children's health program are United States citizens or legal residents. But states are given a new option. Instead of requiring people to produce documents showing citizenship, states can try to verify eligibility by matching a person's name and Social Security number against federal records. The bill requires states to cover dental care under the children's health program, and allows states to provide dental coverage as a supplement to private insurance. In addition, the bill generally requires states to provide equal coverage of mental and physical illnesses — “mental health parity” — under the children's health program. Democrats like Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin rejoiced to see the program being expanded. “Achieving health care for all is the reason I got into politics,” Ms. Baldwin said. “It is my goal, my passion, my motivation. I see real promise that the Obama administration and this Congress will work together to achieve that goal.” Republicans said the bill did not focus narrowly enough on low-income children. People with private health insurance “will drop it so they can get on the government dole,” said Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia. Teamsters News Clip UNION GROUPS RALLY FOR CARD CHECK BILL AT CAPITOL AS CHAMBER REITERATES OPPOSITION Daily Labor Report The same day, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a teleconference with reporters to reiterate its “strong opposition” to the legislation. Change to Win, the AFL-CIO, and American Rights at Work organized the rally to demonstrate support for the bill that would make it easier for employees to form unions — a polarizing measure that has supporters and opponents pouring millions of dollars into advertising and lobbying campaigns. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, attended the rally. Miller is expected to re-introduce H.R. 800 in the “near future,” a congressional aide said. The legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the representative of employees if a majority of employees signs union authorization cards. The proposed legislation also would allow unions to continue to petition for NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections, if they choose, once 30 percent of the workers have signed union authorization cards. Supporters argue that the legislation would allow for the creation of more unions, which would lead to greater protections and buying power for workers. Opponents argue that the bill would cost millions for businesses and lead to increased costs for products and services. On one side of the debate are labor unions and others, including American Rights at Work, the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Resources Defense Council, the National Baptist Convention of America, the National Consumers League, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. OPPONENTS CITE LACK OF ‘SECRET BALLOT'Organizations on the opposing side are led by the chamber and include the National Association of Manufacturers, the Center for Union Facts, the National Right to Work Committee, the Heritage Foundation, and the HR Policy Association. The opponents claim that the bill would end secret ballot representation elections, while the supporters say that is not true, but instead gives workers a choice between secret ballots and majority sign-up. Randel Johnson, the chamber's vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits, told reporters that the legislation effectively would end secret ballots because unions “are always going to use the stronger weapon.” “The practical reality is unions will always use card check,” Johnson said. Johnson said he is confident that the legislation will be turned away by the Senate. “It doesn't matter how many people are on the Hill today,” Johnson said in reference to the union rally. “The votes will not be there for passage in the Senate.” Congressional supporters of the legislation in June 2007 fell nine votes short of the 60 needed to limit Senate debate and proceed to final consideration of the bill. Prior to the Senate vote, the bill passed the House in March 2007 on a 241-185 vote. It is considered a foregone conclusion that the House will approve the legislation again this year; however the timing of when the vote will occur has not been announced. OBAMA ALTERS LABOR POLICIES Union officials say the new orders by Obama will undo Bush administration policies that favored employers over workers. The orders will:
"We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests," Obama said during a signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House. "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution," he said. "You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement." Signing the executive orders was Obama's second overture to organized labor in as many days. On Thursday, he signed the first bill of his presidency, giving workers more time to sue for wage discrimination. "It's a new day for workers," said James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who attended the ceremony with other union leaders. "We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us to rebuild our middle class. Hope for the American Dream is being restored." Teamsters News ClipPASS FREE CHOICE ACT Clarion Ledger - Online “Card check” is also at the heart of one of the most contentious pieces of legislation facing the new Democrat-controlled Congress this session: the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. A major standoff is already shaping up with President Barack Obama, Democrats and unions on one side, and Southern conservatives, Republicans in general, and business groups on the other. Just as Hurricane Katrina hit Mississippi and surrounding states in 2005, labor contracts were being negotiated at casinos on the Gulf Coast and in Tunica as a result of prior “neutrality” agreements by the casinos' Las Vegas-based owners that allowed a successful card-check election here. “It was proven that the vast majority of workers wanted a union,” said Bill Chandler, now director of the Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance but then political director with UNITE HERE in Mississippi. “We were able to bring a number of organizers into Mississippi. We were given access where we could meet with workers in break areas and in their homes. We did a lot of home visits.” Still, the workers themselves did the bulk of the real organizing, Chandler said. “The workers signed up people, not the union.” Nearly 90 percent of the casino employees not only signed up to join a union but also to allow payroll deductions for their union fees. Today, approximately 5,000 workers at the Grand and Sheraton casinos in Tunica and at the Grand in Biloxi are members of either UNITE HERE, the Teamsters, or the International Union of Operating Engineers. Ironically, organizing at the casinos, with their many immigrant workers, also laid the foundation for Chandler's MIRA, a nationally known champion of immigrant rights. Business groups and their friends in Congress are preparing to wage war to make sure Mississippi's experience doesn't become the nation's. With an estimated $200 million war chest to fund lobbying and advertising campaigns, companies like Wal-Mart, the national manufacturers and restaurant associations, and innocuous-sounding special interest groups like the “Workforce Fairness Institute” are battle-ready. After 30 years of battering by Reagan-era conservatism, unions aren't taking anything for granted. They don't have the wherewithal of giant corporations, but the AFL-CIO and other labor groups are running their own $3 million pro-card check ad campaign. The AFL-CIO cites polls showing 73 percent of Americans are in favor of the act “when given the facts.” “In every election I've been involved with, there has been an overt nastiness on the part of employers to intimidate workers,” said Chandler, a labor organizer for more than 40 years whose resume includes working with the legendary Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers. Proof of Chandler's claim isn't hard to find. During a 2001 United Auto Workers election at Nissan's Smyrna, Tenn., plant, CEO Carlos Ghosn forced workers to watch a video in which he direly warned them that a union “is not in your best interest or Nissan's.” The UAW lost the election, of course. Today, Ghosn is CEO of Renault in France, a company that has seen a spike in worker suicides since he took over. Some believe them to be connected with intense, Ghosn-inspired workload pressures that have some employees working 15-hour days plus weekends without overtime pay. According to Cond Nast Portfolio magazine, one of the suicide victims told a relative that “next to Carlos Ghosn, I'm nothing.” The validity of traditional union elections has also been undermined by Republican dominance of the National Labor Relations Board, Chandler said. “The NLRB election process is a sham.” Although the NLRB is a New Deal-era agency charged with protecting workers' rights, companies hire anti-labor lawyers to delay NLRB hearings indefinitely. Sometimes companies even refuse to allow the ballots in an election to be counted for years without fear of NLRB action. With card check legislation, maybe workers will get back some of the rights they have lost over the past three decades.
The House approved the bill on a mostly party-line vote of 244-188, failing to garner the strong bipartisan support that President Obama had hoped to achieve on his economic recovery plan. Eleven Democrats voted against the bill; no Republicans voted for it. The House vote to approve the stimulus plan came one day after the Senate Appropriations Committee (16 DLR A-18, 1/28/09) and the Senate Finance Committee (see related story in this issue) approved portions of the Senate's $825 billion stimulus package. The full Senate is expected to debate its version bill during the week of Feb. 2. The measure, among other things, includes funding for unemployment benefit extensions and job training, enhancements to whistleblower protections for federal employees, and provisions mandating E-Verify use for federal contractors that receive funds under the bill. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $550 billion in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. The package includes $318 billion in spending on infrastructure, energy, education and training, and other programs; $275 billion in tax cuts; $166 billion in state fiscal relief and additional Medicaid funding; and $66 billion in unemployment and health care benefits for long-term jobless workers. “Over 11 million Americans have already lost their jobs— the highest level in 25 years — and every major economist says it's going to get worse before it gets better,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee. Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the nation was losing 500,000 jobs per month and that lawmakers “cannot wait to act” on the stimulus. Some Republicans, however, bristled at the size of the spending and argued that they were shut out of the drafting process. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, criticized the size of the spending totals, saying that the approximately 400-page bill includes about $1.8 billion in spending per page. “It has become a horrendous package that will burden people for lifetimes,” Lewis said on the House floor. Lewis said Republican lawmakers were not included in the process of drafting the legislation. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said it was a “myth” that Republican lawmakers were not involved, and he cited several meetings with Lewis and other Republicans. “They say this so it's easier to vote ‘no,' ” Obey said. “If someone says they were shut out, but they turned the keys from the outside, that's not our fault.” The House approved by voice vote and with little debate an amendment strengthening whistleblower protections for federal employees. The amendment was offered by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.). The language in the amendment is identical to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985) that was approved by the House in March 2007 (50 DLR A-14, 3/15/07). The amendment is designed to strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act, which was enacted in 1989 and amended in 1994. Supporters describe 13 years of rulings hostile to federal employee whistleblowers from courts and the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the U.S. Supreme Court's May 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 74 USLW 4257, 24 IER Cases 737 (2006), that public employees who speak out as part of their jobs are not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amendment Details. The amendment would:
Further, the amendment would extend additional whistleblower protections to government contractors, federally funded scientists, Transportation Security Administration airport screeners, and national security whistleblowers at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies. In addition, the amendment provides for jury trials in federal employee whistleblower cases. Prior to the vote, the Government Accountability Project urged passage of the amendment. “Whistleblower protection is a foundation for any change in which the public can believe,” the group wrote in a Jan. 28 news release. “It does not matter whether the issue is economic recovery, prescription drug safety, environmental protection, infrastructure spending, national health insurance, or foreign policy. We need conscientious public servants willing and able to call attention to bureaucratic corruption on behalf of the taxpayers.” The group noted that the underlying bill, before the amendment was approved, provided the protections for federal contractors and state and local employees, but did not cover federal workers. E-Verify Provision. The bill contains a provision that would mandate that federal contractors hired under the authority of the stimulus verify the employment eligibility through the government's E-Verify system. The system, operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, allows an employer to instantly verify legal working status of prospective employees. The provision, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), was included in the bill during a Jan. 21 markup by the House Financial Committee, which approved the language by voice vote. “While I cannot support this package, I am heartened that any jobs created by it will be secured for American workers,” Kingston said, noting opposition to large deficit spending. “We cannot allow for illegal aliens to benefit from this deficit spending. The American taxpayer will one day be forced to pay it back so it should be them that benefit.” The federal government has twice agreed to postpone implementation of an executive order and a related federal procurement law that require federal contractors to use E-Verify, after a coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging the rule. The government Jan. 9 agreed to delay implementation of the rule, originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 15, until Feb. 20 (6 DLR A-12, 1/12/09). The government said on Jan. 28 that it would further postpone implementation until May 21 (see related story in this issue). “We've got a federal program on our hands that actually works,” Kingston said. “It's ninety-nine percent effective. I can't think of a single federal program with that success rate. Only in Washington would it make sense to let it die.“ But Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said inserting the E-Verify provision into the stimulus package will slow down aid to the economy. “Our ailing economy needs help now,” Noorani said. “Delaying aid while we wait for businesses, local governments, hospitals, and contractors to sign up for what we know is a flawed worker verification system doesn't make sense.” Noorani said that E-Verify should be dealt with as part of a broader fix to the U.S. immigration system. “Injecting it into the stimulus package just guarantees more gridlock and delay,” Noorani said. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) considered offering a similar amendment during the Senate Finance Committee markup Jan. 27 of the Senate's stimulus package. However, he plans to address the issue during the eventual House-Senate conference on the package, according to congressional aides. The package includes $27 billion to continue the current extended unemployment benefits program through Dec. 31, 2009. Enacted last year and scheduled to expire March 31, the federally funded program provides up to seven weeks of extended benefits. Another $9 billion would go to states to increase their regular unemployment insurance benefits, which average about $300 per week, by $25 per week through the end of 2009. Currently, 5.3 million workers are receiving regular benefits, and another 1.9 million are receiving extended benefits. The recovery plan legislation also provides $30.3 billion to extend health insurance coverage for older and tenured unemployed workers under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act beyond the 18 months provided under current law. Jobless workers 55 and older or who worked for an employer for 10 or more years would be able to retain their COBRA coverage until they become Medicare eligible or secure coverage through a subsequent employer. In addition, the funds would subsidize the first 12 months of COBRA coverage for eligible workers who lost their jobs on or after Sept. 1, 2008, at a 65 percent rate, the same as under the health care tax credit for unemployed workers under the trade adjustment assistance program. Under the bill, the Department of Labor would receive $5 billion to provide training for workers and help unemployed workers find jobs. Most of the Labor Department funding would be allocated under the Workforce Investment Act, totaling $4 billion, including $1.2 billion to create up to 1 million summer jobs for youth, according to a detailed summary of the legislation released by the House Appropriations Committee. The WIA funding also would increase grants to help dislocated workers, older workers, and disabled workers and provide $750 million in new competitive grants for worker training in high growth and emerging industry sectors with priority consideration to health care and “green” jobs created by other economic recovery spending, such as retrofitting existing buildings and producing renewable electric power.
The bill also:
THE EFFORT TO ROLL BACK BUSH POLICIES CONTINUES Washington Post In his first seven days in office, Obama has banned the use of controversial CIA interrogation tactics, ordered the closure of the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and begun planning for the drawdown of troops in Iraq. He also imposed stringent limits on lobbyists, unveiled an $825 billion stimulus plan, and ordered a halt to any last-minute rules and regulations put in place by his predecessor. The moves are part of an effort by Obama to follow through on his campaign promise to forge a new direction in Washington, administration officials said. "What you have seen in the first week is rapid change and a resetting of our global agenda," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. "The president believes we can't afford to continue what we are doing. We can't afford to slow down." Yet despite such ambitions, Obama and his aides are also facing a stark reality: Rolling back eight years of the Bush administration is not going to happen overnight. Obama's call for tougher vehicle emissions standards, for example, ran into immediate opposition from major business and auto industry groups. His plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison has angered Republicans who object to transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. facilities. Many of those same Republicans are also fighting his economic stimulus proposal, arguing that it is too costly and would ultimately be ineffective, while others have attacked his plan to quicken the pace of troop withdrawals from Iraq. The new administration has created some dilemmas of its own, as well. After Obama announced strict new lobbying limits for political appointees last week, the White House conceded it would have to issue a waiver for William J. Lynn III, a former Raytheon lobbyist who is up for a post at the Pentagon. "Governing is a lot more complicated than campaigning," said Peter Wehner, a former Bush aide who is now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank. "He's the candidate who has presented himself as moving the Earth. … When you set those kinds of expectations, it's tough to pull them back." Administration defenders note that Obama won election handily in November and that he has some of the highest approval ratings of any new president in modern times. With that kind of popularity, they argue, he is in a position to push for the kind of dramatic changes promised during the campaign. Obama and his aides and have worked to tamp down expectations, especially regarding the economy. In his inaugural address, Obama warned that "the challenges we face are real" and "will not be met easily or in a short span of time." At the same time, he also has suggested that he has no intention of lowering his sights. "There are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans," Obama said during the Jan. 20 speech. "Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage." In addition to his early moves on intelligence policy, the environment and the economy, Obama lifted a ban on U.S. funding for international family planning groups that perform abortions, which was first put in place by Ronald Reagan and revived by Bush. The new president also vowed to open more federal records to public scrutiny and named former U.S. senator George J. Mitchell as a special envoy for Middle East peace. The rapid-fire actions are an early down payment on promises he made throughout his presidential campaign. As he fought his way through a bruising Democratic primary, Obama assailed Bush's economic policies as tax cuts for the wealthy, mocked the president's lack of stature around the world and hammered his response to Hurricane Katrina and his handling of the Iraq war. In his inauguration speech, Obama obliquely referred to the "worn-out dogmas" of the Bush administration and vowed to end what he called "petty grievances and false promises." The new White House Web site includes a withering critique of Bush's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Katrina, and vows to fix "broken promises" to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The anti-Bush rhetoric helped make Obama competitive with Democratic presidential challenger Hillary Rodham Clinton, especially with the liberal wing of his party. And while many of his supporters may be expecting instant results, they are more likely to see a slow and steady push by Obama, accompanied by pleas for patience, aides said. "I don't doubt that there are some that believe that all of this can be done overnight," Gibbs said. "My caution to them is that this will take time. But we feel good about the pace of our progress." Obama has often tempered his soaring rhetoric with a strong doses of pragmatism. In an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors shortly before his inauguration, for example, he said he supported a bill pushed by labor groups that would make it easier to unionize workers, but acknowledged that the proposal is a political thicket that could undermine other priorities. "My focus first is on those key economic priority items," he said. Many of Obama's clearest political challenges are coming from Capitol Hill, where the GOP minority has begun asserting itself, particularly in opposition to Democratic stimulus plans. Obama hopes to save as many as 4 million jobs by cutting taxes by a minimum of $275 billion and spending at least $545 billion on infrastructure, renewable energy production and aid to states. During his first meeting with GOP lawmakers, on Friday, Obama rejected most of their counterproposals. But he has also signaled that he is willing to offer concessions to attract GOP support, and is scheduled to attend another round of meetings with Republican congressional leaders today. Obama appears to be without peer among modern presidents in terms of the number of broad policy pronouncements made during his first week in office. Many Republicans also note that Obama is in a much better political position than was Bush, who entered office in 2001 after a fiercely disputed election and faced a narrowly divided Congress. Even then, Bush was able to push through a massive and controversial package of tax cuts, though he had to offer some concessions to win Democratic support. Ari Fleischer, Bush's first press secretary, said Bush "was forced to trim his sails from the beginning" because of the political climate. "We had zero momentum going in, and never really made a break from the division of the country," he said. "Obama is in a much stronger position."
In early 2005, their adulation was even more desperate as they greeted Condoleezza Rice following Powell's four-year emasculation at the hands of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. What the downcast diplomats really seek is someone who will return the State Department to the central role it played in the days when American diplomacy shaped the most important world events. And they embraced Secretary Clinton with fervor, as she arrived promising a new era of robust diplomacy. With President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at her side, she underscored that promise by announcing two high powered envoys to take charge of diplomatic efforts in two key hot spots: Richard Holbrooke was named Special Adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Senator George Mitchell was named special envoy for the Middle East. (See pictures of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.) But as much as the envoys' appointments raise hopes for renewed vigor in American diplomacy, they raise questions, too: What's their brief, and does the appointment of either, in itself, signal that the Obama Administration plans to adopt new approaches? To whom will they report, and will deploying two such high-powered players result in conflict with their bosses or counterparts elsewhere in the bureaucracy? "It shows that given the enormity of the challenges [Clinton] faces she's not scared to get the highest caliber people," says Daniel Levy, of the New America Foundation, "But how do you make it work?" There are reasons to be optimistic that Holbrooke and Mitchell, and Clinton herself for that matter, are part of a new beginning for American diplomacy. Obama had made rejuvenating diplomacy a centerpiece of his campaign, and he has named a serious and strong-willed team whose members, as much as anything, hate to fail. Both envoys are known to be energetic in the field and to have records of peace-making achievement, Holbrooke in brokering the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnia conflict, and Mitchell in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement that marked the beginning of the end of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. Some see Mitchell as representing a change in approach to the Middle East. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League told New York's Jewish Week that he was "concerned" because Mitchell's "meticulously even-handed" approach — he was tasked with formulating proposals to restore the Israeli-Palestinian peace process during the upsurge of violence that followed the failed Camp David summit in 2000 — could represent a break from a policy based on U.S. support for Israel. Gaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator, says Mitchell's appointment "does send a very good signal and it's creating some excitement among Palestinians." Those who believe that an effective peace process will require that the U.S. talk to Hamas are finding hope in the Mitchell selection. Reflecting two years ago in the International Herald Tribune on his experience in Northern Ireland, Mitchell wrote, "Including in the political process those previously associated with violent groups can actually help. Sometimes it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it." Clinton and Obama have, however, insisted that the U.S. will not talk with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by previous Palestinian agreements. And on Friday, Clinton is expected to announce another key adviser in Dennis Ross, who has taken a hawkish view on engaging Hamas. Conflicts within this group of players in the new Administration seem almost inevitable. Holbrooke, for his part, faces the unenviable task of trying to get the antagonistic governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to work together against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That inevitably requires navigating the fraught relationship between Pakistan's civilian government and its security establishment, and rising tensions with neighboring India following last year's Mumbai terror attacks. Clinton described Holbrooke's role in broad terms, saying he would coordinate "across the entire government an effort to achieve U.S. strategic goals," including working with military leaders, foreign aid workers and diplomats in the region. Holbrooke, more than any diplomat of his generation, is known for his effectiveness but also his relentless leveraging of power and authority to the ends he is pursuing. He was a key foreign policy aide to Clinton during her primary campaign, but controlling him now will be difficult: Expect shoving matches between the envoy, the military and USAID, which has helped pour billions of dollars U.S. assistance to Afghanistan over the last eight years. Holbrooke on Thursday made a point of calling Clinton his "boss." If the weary diplomats at the State department want nothing more than action on the diplomatic front, they're certainly going to get it from Holbrooke and Mitchell. Whether the two men will actually succeed may depend on the policies that guide their efforts and on Hillary Clinton's skills in managing them. She had a simple message for everyone at Foggy Bottom on her first day at work. "This is a team," she told the gathered diplomats, and "We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America." Says Levy of the New America Foundation: "I think you can make it work." Teamsters News Clip That discussion will begin next month, Obama said, when he convenes a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market. "What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further," he said. "We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's." In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, the president-elect pledged quick action on the Middle East once he takes office, promised to support voting rights for D.C. residents, and said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office. Obama repeated his advocacy of large and immediate government spending and tax breaks on the same day that House Democrats were announcing the details of an $825 billion stimulus package and the Senate voted to authorize the release of an additional $350 billion in funds under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. He said that creating jobs and maintaining national security will be his top priorities and added that his efforts as president should be measured by whether the nation can overcome predicted job losses in the months ahead. "I don't have a crystal ball," Obama said after being asked when the economy might begin to recover. "Nobody can tell." But he added: "Even with the stuff that we are doing, I think we can still anticipate that 2009 is going to be very tough." Obama vowed to build a new financial regulatory system that inspires clarity and transparency, and endorsed the broad direction offered yesterday by a group led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, an adviser to the incoming president. The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue. "If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned," he said. "Let's see what the legislative docket looks like." Obama repeated his assurance that there is "near-unanimity" among economists that government spending will help restore jobs in the short term, adding that some estimates of necessary stimulus now reach $1.3 trillion. The president-elect said he believes that direct government spending provides the most "bang for the buck" and that his advisers have worked to design tax cuts that would be most likely to spur consumer and business spending. But he framed the economic recovery efforts more broadly, saying it is impossible to separate the country's financial ills from the long-term need to rein in health-care costs, stabilize Social Security and prevent the Medicare program from bankrupting the government. "This, by the way, is where there are going to be very difficult choices and issues of sacrifice and responsibility and duty," he said. "You have to have a president who is willing to spend some political capital on this. And I intend to spend some." Obama is not the first incoming president to make bold declarations about overhauling the nation's retirement and health-care systems. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made similar vows. Clinton's push for universal health care — led by his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton — collapsed under opposition from insurance companies and leaders on Capitol Hill. In 1993, Clinton appointed a commission on Medicare and Social Security headed by then-Sens. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) and John Danforth (R-Mo.), but never implemented its ambitious recommendations. Bush made Social Security reform a centerpiece of his domestic agenda in his second term and, like Obama, pledged to expend political capital on the issue. He recently cited his failed push to allow some younger workers to invest their Social Security money in the stock market as one of the regrets of his presidency. Five days before taking office, Obama was careful not to outline specific fixes for Social Security and Medicare, refusing to endorse either a new blue-ribbon commission or the concept of submitting an overhaul plan to Congress that would be subject only to an up-or-down vote, similar to the one used to reach agreement on the closure of military bases. But the president-elect exuded confidence that his economic team will succeed where others have not. "Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. … We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system." Medicare, the government health program for retirees and the disabled, is projected to be insolvent by 2019, according to the most recent report by the Social Security and Medicare trustees. Over the next two decades, Medicare spending is expected to double, consuming nearly one-quarter of the federal budget. Beginning in 2011, Social Security will take in less revenue than it pays out and will be forced to dip into reserves to pay benefits. It is projected to deplete its reserves by 2041, according to the trustees. "The longer action is delayed, the greater will be the required adjustments, the larger the burden on future generations, and the more severe the detrimental economic impact on our nation," the trustees wrote last year. In 2007, Medicare spending consumed 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, while Social Security represented 4 percent of GDP. Obama's call for a financial summit is in part a response to a growing anxiety in Congress, where members are being asked to approve an unprecedented amount of federal spending at a breakneck pace. Aides said it was modeled after a summit Clinton held in 1995 to discuss reforming welfare. The president-elect has been in frequent conversation with lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats, who repeatedly told Obama they would be willing to support his stimulus package only if he pledged not to lose sight of the larger budget picture. Those who will be invited to attend the summit include the Blue Dogs, Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking minority member Judd Gregg (N.H.) and a host of outside groups with expertise on the topics, the president-elect said. Obama said he is confident that he can find a way to close the Guantanamo Bay prison while finding a way to deal with and house potentially dangerous detainees. Sources said an executive order will lay out a procedure for closing the facility, but strongly disputed reports that such an order will come on the first day of the new administration. On Israel, Obama again declined to comment on the violence in the Gaza Strip, repeating his mantra that the United States should have only "one president at a time" when it comes to foreign policy matters. But he promised early engagement on peace in the Middle East. "I know some people have said, 'You have this big economic crisis on your hands, and so President Obama is going to just put off issues like this until his second term or later in his first term,' " he said. "I don't think we have that luxury." He added: "That doesn't mean that we close a deal or we have some big grand, you know, Camp David-type event early in my administration. It does mean that we have a team in place which is hitting the ground and starting to engage constructively." Obama reacted to questions about the emerging structure of his White House by displaying confidence in his ability to manage people. He has begun assembling a powerful team of White House counselors who will compete with Cabinet secretaries for influence over the majority of domestic and foreign policy issues. "The theory behind it is I set the tone," Obama said. "If the tone I set is that we bring as much intellectual firepower to a problem, that people act respectfully towards each other, that disagreements are fully aired, and that we make decisions based on facts and evidence as opposed to ideology, that people will adapt to that culture and we'll be able to move together effectively as a team." He added: "I have a pretty good track record at doing that." Teamsters News Clip Washington Post (January 7, 2009) America’s most famous television surgeon, Sanjay Gupta, is poised to take his black bag and microphone to the White House as President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for U.S. surgeon general. A neurosurgeon who is also a correspondent for CNN and CBS, Gupta was chosen as much for his broadcasting skills as for his medical résumé, suggesting that the incoming administration values visible advisers who can drive a public message. He has also been offered a top post in the new White House Office of Health Reform, twin duties that could make him the most influential surgeon general in history. A practicing physician and one of People magazine’s “Sexiest Men Alive,” Gupta met for more than two hours with Obama in Chicago on Nov. 25, according to two sources with knowledge of the talks. Gupta, 39, later spoke with several Obama advisers, including Thomas A. Daschle, who will run the new White House policy office and the Department of Health and Human Services. The globetrotting doctor has told Obama aides he wants the job, which involves overseeing the 6,000-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. When reached yesterday, Gupta did not deny that he plans to accept the offer but declined to comment. Transition officials refused to speak on the record about his selection, but several Obama allies praised Gupta as the sort of highly visible, articulate physician who might restore the luster that the position of “the nation’s doctor” had in the person of Reagan appointee C. Everett Koop and some of his predecessors. A representative of the Commissioned Corps, however, said Gupta will face a “credibility gap” because he has never served in the uniformed Public Health Service. “I am unaware of any public health experience or qualifications he has to be the leader of the nation’s public health service,” said Gerard M. Farrell, executive director of the service’s Commissioned Officers Association. “This would be akin to appointing the Army chief of staff from the city council of Hoboken,” N.J. The selection of Gupta represents a “return to a communicator model,” said Susan Blumenthal, who retired as an assistant surgeon general two years ago after 20 years in the Public Health Service. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Gupta would provide the administration with a skilled television personality to help market what is planned to be a massive reorganization of the U.S. health system. The Obama team already has initiated a public relations campaign aimed at mobilizing grass-roots support for eventual health reform legislation. Last week, Daschle appeared at town-hall-style meetings in Indiana and Washington to solicit public input. The sessions, captured on video and posted on the transition Web site, were among more than 8,500 local gatherings held over the holidays. Gupta is “a great voice to get the public engaged in the discussion over health care reform,” said Kenneth Thorpe, a former Clinton administration official who has become friendly with Gupta as a colleague at Emory University in Atlanta. Gupta, the son of Indian parents, has long been drawn to policymaking. He was a White House fellow in the late 1990s, writing speeches and crafting policy for then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is currently associate chief of neurosurgery at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta’s busy downtown hospital. Gupta’s jobs as journalist and physician have sometimes overlapped. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, he was embedded with a Navy unit nicknamed Devil Docs and, while covering its mission for CNN, performed brain surgery five times, including on a 2-year-old Iraqi boy. “I’m a doctor first,” he told The Washington Post in a 2006 interview. “If I had to choose one today, I’d choose medicine.” His appointment would give Obama’s administration a prominent official of South Asian descent. Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, had been the highest-ranking Indian American in the federal government as an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services from 2001 to 2003. Gupta hosts “House Call” on CNN and in October aired a special report on presidential health called “Fit to Lead.” Once CNN became aware of the negotiations with Obama, the network said in a statement, Gupta was barred from reporting on health policy. His only hesitation in taking the post involved the financial impact on his family -- he and his wife have two children and another on the way -- if he gave up his lucrative medical and television careers, sources said. The surgeon general’s post pays between $143,500 and $196,700. The experience of the last surgeon general, Richard H. Carmona, may serve as a cautionary note for Gupta. The outspoken Vietnam War veteran accused the Bush White House of muzzling him and suppressing important public health information because it did not align with the administration’s political views. To survive a job in Washington, Carmona famously observed, get two dogs, because “one of them will turn on you.” But like Carmona, who had been a SWAT team member, Gupta would arrive in Washington with some unusual survival skills. In 2004, in a show titled “Life Beyond Limits,” the television doctor walked on glass shards. “I couldn’t bring myself to jump,” he said on air, “but at least we both walked away without a scratch.” TEAMSTERS NEWS CLIP
President-elect Barack Obama arrived on Capitol Hill yesterday and immediately set to work reassuring skeptical Republicans about his massive economic stimulus package -- part of a campaign that earned him praise for seeking their input but questions from those averse to hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending. "The monopoly on good ideas does not belong to a single party. If it's a good idea, we will consider it," Obama told House and Senate leaders at an hour-long closed-door meeting, according to one attendee. Obama, making his pitch two weeks before taking office, won generally favorable reviews from GOP leaders, particularly because of his decision to increase the tax-cut ratio to 40 percent of the overall package. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters they were convinced that Obama was sincere in his invitation to let Republicans help craft the nearly $800 billion package to create jobs and lift the nation out of recession. But they also expressed concerns about the size of the package, as well as particular elements under discussion between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "I remain concerned about wasteful spending that might be attached to the tax relief. Simply put, we should not bury future generations under mountains of debt," Boehner said. Boehner suggested the legislation would likely be signed into law by mid-February, but the president-elect said yesterday that he would like the House and Senate to present him with a bill by the end of January or beginning of February. "The economy is very sick," Obama said. "The situation is getting worse. . . . We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession." As described by his advisers, Obama is proposing a package of tax cuts to benefit families and businesses. Like the overall spending proposal, the tax cuts would be designed to put cash in people's pockets over the next two years and kick-start the economy. Working families would be eligible for a tax credit worth up to $1,000. Individuals would be eligible for a $500 credit. Businesses would get an extension of expired tax breaks from the 2008 stimulus package signed by President Bush, including a "bonus depreciation" break that allows businesses to write off more of their purchases more quickly and an increase in small-business expensing limits. Businesses could apply current losses to taxes paid back as far as five years ago, reaping an immediate cash windfall. And they would receive a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create or preserve. Key details of the stimulus proposal remain unresolved. For instance, upper-income individuals would not be eligible for the income tax credit, but the income threshold for phasing out the benefit has not been set. Obama officials said it would likely be about $200,000 a year, the range set during the campaign. Obama officials said they tried to keep the package ideologically neutral, rejecting an option supported by many progressives to make people who are not working eligible for a "refundable" tax credit. And they passed up conservative provisions such as estate tax relief and capital gains tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals. After a lunchtime session with his economic advisers, Obama rejected suggestions that the tax cuts were designed to win over GOP votes. "The notion that me wanting to include relief for working families in this plan is somehow a political ploy, when this was a centerpiece of my plan for the last two years doesn't make too much sense," he told reporters. Some prominent Republicans expressed reservations about the tax proposals' specifics. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), a member of the Senate Republican leadership team, said he hadn't studied the list of proposed cuts, but that he favored reducing corporate and capital gains taxes, and providing more generous small-business incentives. And, he said, "These changes should be permanent, rather than just temporary." Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, said he would prefer a tax package that is "inclusive rather than exclusive" and that offers relief to "as many as taxpayers as possible." One option, according to a senior Grassley aide, would be to include a $75 billion provision to prevent the alternative minimum tax from applying to millions of additional families. It is also not clear that tax cuts are the most effective way to win GOP votes. Two key Republican moderates in the Senate -- Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine -- have not focused on tax breaks as the best solution to the economic crisis. In a letter to Obama last month, Collins outlined her stimulus priorities as transportation construction projects, energy-efficiency investments and a temporary increase in Medicaid assistance to states. In conversations with Obama and his Treasury secretary-designate Timothy F. Geithner, Snowe has urged the inclusion of unemployment assistance, mortgage relief for strapped homeowners and programs to ease the credit crunch facing small businesses. "With more than 10.3 million people currently out of work, Congress must swiftly enact economic recovery legislation that will create jobs, assist the unemployed and reduce the devastating rate of home foreclosures," Snowe said. Obama bounced across the Capitol yesterday to take part in three meetings, beginning with a one-on-one meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the morning and a sit-down in the early afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The final meeting was with the bipartisan leadership from both chambers. Democrats described the atmosphere as markedly different than the confrontational tone of recent battles with the Bush White House, in part because the new administration is run by former senators. "They understand the Senate, they understand the Capitol. It wasn't as if someone new was coming to town," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip and close Obama ally, said afterward. Some Republicans, while saying they were pleased by Obama's attempt to open dialogue, questioned whether the spending side of the plan would be transparent enough. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, pledged to put details of the spending plan online, including the creation of a monitoring system for the progress on some of the projects, according to one attendee. Some independent analysts joined GOP aides in questioning Obama's tax credit for job creation, saying it's unclear how such a provision would be crafted. "When somebody lays off 10,000 people but hires back 1,000, should they get a tax credit? That doesn't really seem fair," said Leonard Burman, a director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "The problem with these things is defining what qualifies." Meanwhile, some Republicans and moderate Democrats are pushing Obama to commit to addressing the nation's long-term budget problems even as his stimulus package pushes the government deeper into debt. With congressional budget analysts expected to announce later this week that this year's deficit is likely to soar well over $1 trillion, a commitment to reducing future deficits is critical, said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "At some point here, you have to pivot and face up to these long-term problems," said Conrad, who along with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is proposing a commission to re-examine the expensive entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. TEAMSTERS NEWS CLIP Getting Beyond a Culture of Contempt January 6, 2009 Providence Journal By ELLEN REISS The election of Barack Obama is important not only because the American people have chosen a person of color to be our president. That fact, certainly, is a tremendous, historic victory for ethics. But the election is also an important ethical victory because the massive use of lies didn't work. And the various scare words didn't scare. And it's important because of something to be seen in an American poem about another election. Vachel Lindsay, in his poem "Bryan, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan," writes about the election of 1896, in which William Jennings Bryan ran against William McKinley. He describes the feeling millions of people had about Bryan, and very much young people. Bryan seemed to represent the rights of Americans who were not rich; he seemed to represent their hopes and an America that could belong to all the people, not just the moneyed. That election was, of course, different from the current one; and besides, Bryan lost. But there is this likeness: the feeling that both Bryan and Obama stood for something kind, against, as Lindsay puts it, "the mean and the cold." There are lines like these, about Bryan: "He brought in tides of wonder, of unprecedented splendor. Wild roses from the plains, that made hearts tender." Lindsay describes the huge crowds at Bryan rallies, because people felt that this person stands for an America that is kinder, that is truer to herself. Lindsay writes of being at a Bryan rally at age 16, in Springfield, Ill.: And Bryan took the platform. And he was introduced. And he lifted his hand. And cast a new spell. Progressive silence fell. In Springfield, in Illinois, around the world. A person can symbolize something to people that they don't wholly understand and that he does not live up to. Had Bryan been elected, he might not have lived up to people's hopes. Barack Obama was elected. And it is necessary for America to see, and for him to see, what it would mean to meet America's hopes, which are also desperate needs. For our president-elect to be a good president, for him to succeed, he must want, passionately, to answer this question, articulated by Eli Siegel: “What does a person deserve by being a person?" And he must make sure the economy of America is based on a true answer to that question. In 1970 Mr. Siegel, founder of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism, began his series of Goodbye Profit System lectures. He explained that the world had reached the point when economics based on a selfish, ugly, unethical way of seeing one's fellow humans no longer worked. While the profit system might drag on for quite a few years, and sometimes be given a flashy façade, it was a mortally ailing thing. Week after week, using documents of the past and present -- of economics, history, literature and human feeling -- he explained why we had come to the time when "there will be no economic recovery in the world until economics itself -- the making of money, the having of jobs -- becomes ethical; is based on good will rather than on the ill will that has been predominant for centuries." The profit motive -- the seeing of people in terms of "How much money can I get out of you? How cheaply can I employ you? How can I use you to feather my own nest?"-- was always ugly. It made for child labor; for miserable working conditions, with their ensuing occupational diseases and maimings; for poverty wages. But by 1970, the ill will of the profit motive was not only ugly: It was inefficient; it was less and less able to bring in the desired returns. This year, we have some of the results of the effort to keep that mean way of using people going: We have an American financial collapse, millions of Americans unemployed, and many more about to be -- with all the terror and suffering that includes. The incoming president, and Congress, and the American people need to see that tinkering around with an unethically based economy will not work. We now have to have economics based, not on profit, but on ethics, justice and usefulness. Let's take the automobile industry of America. As I comment on it, I'm not speaking in terms of particular legislative or executive decisions, but in terms of ethics. It is, as The Wall Street Journal reported (Nov. 8-9), in such a "deepening crisis" that "Washington may have to step in to finance a historic downsizing of the U.S. auto industry." Letting this industry, which Mr. Obama called "the backbone of American manufacturing," die is unacceptable. But pouring vast quantities of taxpayer money into auto companies based on providing profit to stockholders, is now repugnant to the American people, and furthermore won't work. With competition from Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Germany and more, there is an expense that must be eliminated from this "backbone of American manufacturing" for it to succeed. That expense is profit for individuals who didn't do the work. The U.S. auto industry cannot sustain itself and pay its workers' benefits and pensions, while at the same time paying out those completely unnecessary extras --emoluments to non-working stockholders. If the people of America are going to bail out auto companies, there is no reason why we ourselves, or the auto workers, cannot be the companies, own the companies. The people of America need autos. The people of America can produce autos. Autos simply can no longer be produced in America on the basis of private profit, with money from their sales going into the pockets of stockholders. Once they could -- when car manufacturing took place pretty much in the U.S. alone. What this "backbone of American manufacturing" now needs to be based on is not the scare word used during the presidential campaign. What it needs to be based on is, as Mr. Siegel once put it, deep American decency. The election of 2008 was a magnificent victory against racism. Yet as we know, racism still exists, in all its filth. The next president and the American people need to learn from Aesthetic Realism what racism comes from. And they need to see that profit economics arose from the very same source in the human self. Both racism and the profit motive come from contempt: "the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it," as Eli Siegel put it. To illustrate this fact, I'm going to quote from a periodical of nearly 100 years ago, which Mr. Siegel used in several of his lectures. In the Aug. 18, 1910 issue of the Independent magazine, there is an article by the important writer and sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois. He describes being looked down on, because he was black, by an impoverished little girl who was white: “She was a poor little waif of six or seven years. She was stealing a ride on an Eighth Avenue furniture van and spied me on a passing street car. She stuck out her tongue and jeered and made every contortion of countenance to show her personal disapproval of my kind and the superiority of hers. Poor little enthralled thing! It was not enough that she should be imprisoned by poverty and ignorance; this great nation must needs chain her with race prejudice." Du Bois is eloquent and nobly sympathetic. But we need to learn the reason the little girl could welcome being "chain[ed] with race prejudice" is that there is a desire in the self to be big by seeing someone else as less. And this ordinary yet foulest desire in the human self is the only reason a nation could feel it is somehow tolerable for some children to be born poor and others rich. We have had a great, historic election. Now for America to fare well, justice to every man, woman, and child must be the very basis of our economy. (Ellen Reiss is class chairman of Aesthetic Realism.) Back to top of page
HOFFA LAUDS SOLIS
(December 19, 2008, Washington, D.C., IBT News) Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa issued the following statement in support of the expected nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., as Labor Secretary: “We’re thrilled with the selection of Rep. Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary. Under her leadership, we expect the Labor Department to return to its mission of protecting workers rather than attacking them. ATLAS, POLAR AIR ON BOARD ATLAS, POLAR AIR CARGO CREWMEMBERS VOTE TO JOIN TEAMSTERS UNION GROUP OF NEARLY 900 WORKERS VOTE TO JOIN UNION BY A 2-1 MARGIN (December 19, 2008, Washington, D.C., IBT News) By a more than 2 to 1 margin, nearly 900 crewmembers at Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide have voted to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Jim Hoffa, Teamsters General President. “We are excited to welcome the Atlas and Polar flight crewmembers to the Teamsters,” Hoffa said. “Our Airline Division, under the leadership of Capt. David Bourne, will help negotiate a strong contract for the crewmembers. The Teamsters will also provide accountable representation.” The crewmembers have been represented by an association, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), but the association does not have the focus, strength and cargo experience of the Teamsters to represent their interests. “Now, the Atlas and Polar crewmembers will receive strong Teamster representation and they will have an independent local union backed by the 1.4 million member Teamsters,” Bourne said. “The Teamsters have the necessary resources to help our newest members achieve a more secure future.” The Teamsters will also allow the crewmembers more decision-making power through their Teamster Local Union for the issues that matter most to them. Crewmembers voted by telephone and over the Internet since November 19, and the votes were tallied today. The election was administered by the National Mediation Board. The Teamsters Airline Division represents more than 40,000 workers in the aviation industry in every craft and class.
(December 18, 2008, Washington, D.C., IBT News) FedEx Corp. [NYSE: FDX] today announced drastic cuts in pay and deferred compensation for most of its U.S. workforce. Salaried U.S. FedEx employees will take permanent 5 percent to 10 percent base salary reductions while FedEx founder, Chief Executive and Chairman Fred Smith will take a permanent 20 percent reduction in base salary. According to company statements, hourly employees will not see base wages impacted in this round of cost controls. “The FedEx workers that have made this company a household name and deliver the profits will now shoulder more insecurity for their futures,” said Teamster General President Jim Hoffa. “At the busiest time of their delivery season, the company is delivering nothing but coal for its workforce.” More dramatically for hourly employees, bonus compensation and the company’s 401(k) matching contribution will cease for 2009. This unilateral decision to stop 401(k) matches closely follows the June 2008 capping of FedEx Express employees’ defined benefit pension. In announcing the end of the defined benefit plan in 2007 FedEx said, “Planning and saving for retirement is a partnership between FedEx and its employees, and we are committed to helping our employees enjoy a financially sound future,” Apparently, that “partnership” is no longer part of the corporation’s future. Although garnering headlines for his salary adjustment, Smith meanwhile retains $26,411,752 accrued under the FedEx Retirement Parity Pension Plan and $1,164,464 under the Employees’ Pension Plan. Additionally, Smith’s $1.4 million salary only comprised 13 percent of the $10.9 million that he raked in for 2008. In fact, 55 percent of Smith’s 2008 pay was in stock options not tied to any performance goals. As of May 31, Smith also held currently exercisable, in-the-money options worth $24.9 million, based on yesterday’s closing stock price. In the past two years alone, he’s exercised options worth more than $60 million. FedEx has not clarified if the company’s variable compensation changes will affect Smith’s outstanding, exercisable options or if FedEx will suspend option grants for 2009. “FedEx workers have seen their wages stagnate, their health care costs go up and their retirement benefits go down or go away entirely while FedEx has pocket ed millions in profits in good times,” said Teamsters Vice President At Large and Package Division Director Ken Hall. “Many FedEx workers already see Teamster representation as a way to secure their future and these drastic measures will convince more of the value of a Teamster contract.” The difference in pay and compensation between management and workers is one factor leading FedEx workers to seek Teamster representation. The broken “Purple Promises” on wages and retirement benefits were the subject of a public Blue Ribbon Commission hearing on Dec. 16, jointly sponsored by the Teamsters, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and Clergy and Laity for Economic Justice/Los Angeles (CLUE LA). Blue Ribbon Commission members U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez, Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and United Methodist Church (Los Angeles) Bishop Mary Ann Swenson heard testimony from a number of FedEx workers on their deteriorating work conditions and struggles to hold onto the middle class life. “I could afford to retire at age 62 under the defined benefit pension plan but with the stroke of a pen, and with little warning and no input or discussion from employees, FedEx changed our retirement plans,” said Dan Forrand, a 15-year veteran aircraft maintenance technician from FedEx Express in Los Angeles. Now, as the economy suffers and FedEx Express employees’ retirement security is in greater jeopardy, FedEx has pulled a bait and switch more drastic than even Forrand knew when he was testifying.
(December 15, 2008, Washington, D.C.) Following are comments by Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa released December 12 regarding the ongoing so-called “bailout” of the U.S. auto industry by the U.S. Federal Government. Much is going on in Congress and the White House as the politicians try to do something helpful, but nothing that would cost them votes. Some are attacking the Labor Movement directly, especially the United Auto Workers, publicly stating that the cause of the crisis is not corporate mismanagement but Union workers’ wages and benefit packages.
|
||||||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||
 |
