 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IBT News Release: FAREWELL TO SENATOR KENNEDY (August 31, 2009) Last week the Teamsters Union along with the rest of the United States Labor Movement said farewell to one of the best friends of working people in the United States Senate. The death of Senator Ted Kennedy was a huge blow to the nation. Here is what the IBT said about it in an official press release dated August 26:
IBT News Release:
Recently elected Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes ordered the reopening of the case following requests from labor and government officials to follow through on his promise to strengthen the judicial system and crack down on crime in El Salvador by bringing Soto’s murderers to justice. “President Funes has taken an important first step in strengthening human rights in El Salvador,” Hoffa said. “The violence against trade unionists in El Salvador and across Central and South America has been allowed to go unchecked for far too long. Gilberto Soto’s murderers must not be allowed to remain free if the Salvadoran government seeks to make significant strides in strengthening democratic institutions.” Hoffa, in a recent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged the State Department to inform President Funes that solving the Soto case will go a long way to further human rights in El Salvador.
“Convicting the Soto assassins is not simply an issue of importance to the Teamsters,” Hoffa wrote. “Those who murder labor and human rights activists in El Salvador have operated with impunity for too many years. This has stifled the development of a trade union movement and stymied the development of a democratic civil society.” Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) also called on President Funes to reopen the Soto case in a June 8 letter. “This case has not duly advanced through the Salvadoran judicial system, and while Salvadoran authorities made arrests in the case, they have done little to fully investigate,” McGovern wrote. Full text of the McGovern letter can be found here. In an interview with a Salvadoran newspaper, former Salvadoran Human Rights Ombudswoman Beatrice Allamani de Carrillo expressed her satisfaction with the reopening of the case, indicating that it confirms the findings in a report she and her staff originally submitted to authorities. “Now the Office of the Attorney General has the responsibility to conduct a sound investigation,” said De Carrillo, who has long contended that Soto was murdered because of his trade union activities. Soto was shot in the back and killed while visiting Usulutan on union business on November 5, 2004. To date, the police have done little to apprehend what appears to be a death squad that killed the union representative. In fact, in De Carrillo’s report, the former ombudswoman charged that the police had perpetrated a cover up rather than conduct an exhaustive investigation. A prominent figure involved in organizing port drivers in the United States, Soto was visiting El Salvador on behalf of the Teamsters to meet with Central American trade union leaders and port drivers. Immediately following Soto’s death, the Teamsters Union sent a delegation of labor and human rights representatives to El Salvador to appeal for a transparent and effective investigation. The union offered a $50,000 reward for any information leading to the conviction of Soto’s assassins. Teamsters News Link:DEAN CHALLENGES OBAMA TO DELIVER HEALTH CARE REFORM Washington Post
Although he is lending voice and brand to the liberal cause in the intraparty health-care debate, Dean hardly considers himself a spoiler. Rather, he sees his role as fighting for progressive values, asserting again and again that health-care reform without a government-run insurance option is hardly reform at all. When he visited this tranquil corner of New England last weekend, Dean warned that if Democratic leaders abandon the "public option," they surrender their principles to politics. "The worst thing that could happen is to pass a bill without a public option," he told about 200 union workers and Democratic volunteers in a fiery speech at a pep rally and picnic here Sunday. "Then we'd put 60 billion new dollars a year into the health insurance industry that is busy taking away your health insurance when you need it most, stopping you from getting health insurance, taking it away if you lose a job and not giving it back to you if you get it back." "We all voted for change we can believe in. If we don't get it, we'll get some more change in 2010," Dean roared, the crowd applauding between bites of hamburgers, hot dogs and macaroni salad. 'WE'VE GOT TO GET IT DONE' "I think Obama's plan is very good," said Dean, a former physician who has made health care a key focus of his political career. "In fact, I think it's the most practical, most likely-to-succeed plan I've seen in 30 years, and we've got to get it done. This is the time." "Any bill is not going to be a victory," Dean added, noting that he considers one without a public option a "terrible waste of money. The fiscal conservative side of me is saying, 'Oh my God, what are we doing here?' "
"What Howard is doing is principled but destructive," said a Democratic strategist and former Dean adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intraparty debate. "If health-care reform goes down because of the public option, it's going to be the liberals that bring it down, the Democrats doing it to themselves." Dean, 60, has become a politician without an office. Seven months removed from the DNC chairmanship and seven years away from being governor of Vermont, he appears to enjoy the freedom to speak his piece. And on this day, he did not appear concerned about the potential consequences for Obama. "This vote is not about Democrats versus Republicans and conservatives and liberals and all that stuff," Dean said, his voice growing louder and his cadence faster. "This is about whether you're going to vote for the people who donated to your campaigns -- the health insurance industry -- or you're going to vote for the people who pay your salary. And we're going to be watching, because there are going to be 535 people casting that vote." FREE TO SPEAK OUT In the morning, for the 40-minute drive to Poland Spring, Dean rode not in a Town Car but in a Toyota Prius driven by a local Democratic activist. "I've cursed the stimulus package more than once as I've been trying to drive in various places," Dean joked from the front seat as the car meandered past orange construction cones. Progressive Democrats in Congress, and the volunteer activists who helped put them there, revolted this week over comments from top administration officials that Obama was willing to give up a public insurance option to strike a deal with Congress. Some are frustrated after working for years to help Democrats win back the White House and big majorities in Congress. "They are like, 'What's the fruit of our labor?' " said Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who managed Dean's 2004 upstart presidential campaign but has publicly feuded with him since. "Howard's giving that voice. He's definitely speaking out for a legitimate, sizable portion of rank-and-file progressives." On Sunday at the Androscoggin County Democrats picnic, many showed their displeasure with any health-care deal that does not preserve a public option. "I would like to see single-payer health care in this country," said Randy Huber, 64, a retired state government worker from Canaan. "To me, the public option is only a start." Marianne von Nordeck, 29, a labor organizer from Portland, added: "We think real reform means a public option, and [Dean] has the freedom to get up there and advocate with us." 'NO MORE COMPROMISES' "The president has put together the best health-care [proposal] I've ever seen," Dean said. But, he added, the public option itself is a compromise between liberals who supported a government-run single-payer system and moderates. "We have already made our compromise, and there will be no more compromises in this bill." Asked in the interview whether he sees himself as a spokesman for the progressive wing of the party, the man who ran for president saying that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" replied, "I don't spend a lot of time seeing myself in general." A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE "Health care was the primary driver of him getting into politics a long time ago," said his brother, Jim Dean, who chairs the Democracy for America political action committee. "He's very committed to getting health care for everybody. He tried it nine ways, sideways, here and angled a way to do it for kids. But he really views this as being a core issue for him." What Dean is selling is his latest book, or at least the proposal outlined in it. "Not to shill for my own book, but if you have $12.99 or whatever it is to spare, 'Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform' actually explains all this in plain English in about 130 pages, and you can get through it in a good afternoon," he told the Poland Spring crowd. 'HE DIDN'T WALK AWAY' "I think Howard Dean would've loved to have been in the room hashing out health-care reform, whatever the role," Trippi said. "I think he would've relished that. He's passionate, he's a doctor, he knows it. But, look, that wasn't in the cards, and to his credit he didn't walk away. He's leading the charge on issues he cares about."
UPS AND FEDEX BATTLE OVER LABOR LAW
Courier-Journal UPS has provided its employees with stationery, stamps and work time for the task, said spokesmen at UPS headquarters in Atlanta and its Louisville-based airline. Many people identifying themselves as employees have complained anonymously on an outside Web site dedicated to UPS topics, browncafe.com, that they felt pressured to write the letters. “My system manager told us ‘this is not an optional activity.' I wrote the letters and still feel dirty,” said one posting. But UPS spokesman Malcolm Berkley said the effort was “absolutely” voluntary. “The issue is one that impacts every UPS employee,” Berkley said, adding that some wrote letters on their own without being asked. “If an employee did not and does not choose to write a letter, he or she does not have to.” Mike Mangeot, spokesman for Louisville-based UPS Airlines, said the letter writing has not taken employees away from normal duties for long. “It just takes a few minutes,” he said. UPS has 20,513 employees in Louisville. The public relations battle between the nation's two largest package carriers turned nasty in June when Memphis-based FedEx Corp. debuted a Web site labeling the proposed labor law change a “Brown Bailout” for UPS. The provision is included in an appropriations bill for the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a 2-to-1 margin in May. While UPS and FedEx compete head-to-head for air and ground shipping, they got their starts as very different companies and, as a result, have been governed in part by very different labor laws. Because FedEx Express was set up as an airline, it falls under a labor law that was first applied to railroads and later to airlines. The Railway Labor Act makes it more difficult to strike and requires unions to organize workers in one national group — a more difficult task than recruiting members at local workplaces. Even FedEx Express employees not directly involved with air operations, including those that drive delivery trucks, are covered by the Railway Labor Act, and other than pilots, U.S. employees of FedEx Express are not unionized, FedEx spokesman Maury Lane said. But UPS' origins as a ground trucking company means it has largely been covered by a different law, the National Labor Relations Act, that allows workers to organize at the local level. That allows a union to gain a foothold by organizing one location at a time, rather than needing a national majority of workers to join. A union representing workers at just a few locations of a national distribution operation like UPS or FedEx has clout because a shutdown of a key hub can have a wider disruptive effect. UPS argues that fairness requires moving FedEx Express drivers into the same legal category as UPS drivers. Berkley, the UPS spokesman, said FedEx Express drivers are the only delivery-company drivers in the country who fall under the Railway Labor Act. “Your package is not delivered to you by a pilot (and) it doesn't fall out of an airplane. It comes to you by a driver in a truck,” he said. “All we are in support of is applying the same law equally to people who do the same jobs.” But FedEx's Lane said the change would subject FedEx to work stoppages like the strike by 185,000 Teamsters that hogtied UPS in August 1997. That would be bad for businesses and consumers who rely on express service, he said. “We've operated for 38 years without a work stoppage,” Lane said. He said UPS's push to change labor rules is “an effort to disrupt our FedEx Express operations by creating local labor disruptions,” which is exactly what the Railway Labor Act aims to prevent. The Teamsters union, which represents about 250,000 UPS employees, strongly supports the legal change, said Ken Hall, director of the union's package division. The union has sought to represent FedEx drivers. “FedEx Express workers are the only employees within the industry … that don't have the same basic right” to form a local union, Hall said. Hall said UPS did not force union employees to write letters supporting the legislation and that he would have intervened if they were coerced or punished. He added that the union, too, has asked members to write Congress on the issue. But Lane said FedEx has received numerous e-mails from UPS employees complaining about being required to write letters. FedEx said in March that if the provision becomes law, the company might not buy 30 more Boeing 777 freighters — a $6 billion decision that could cost thousands of manufacturing jobs. The provision would affect about 100,000 FedEx Express employees out of a total of about 125,000, Lane said. Pilots and other air-related employees would not be affected. Nothing would change for the roughly 165,000 employees of FedEx's other three divisions, including FedEx Ground. They already fall under the same law as UPS. The issue could be settled in the Senate, which did not adopt a similar provision after the House passed it in 2007. The Senate's own FAA reauthorization bill does not include language changing FedEx Express's labor status. If the bill passes in its current form, a House-Senate conference committee would have to resolve differences. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has received “many letters” on the issue from Kentucky-based employees of both UPS and FedEx, said his press secretary, Robert Steurer. He said McConnell is reviewing the legislation.
IBT News Release:
MANY POLITICAL ISSUES OF WHICH TO BE AWARE (August 10, 2009) Message from the IBT:
IBT News Release: HISPANIC WORKERS FIRED UNIONBUSTING LAS VEGAS SOLID WASTE GIANT REPUBLIC SERVICES TARGETS 30 HISPANIC WORKERS FOR ORGANIZING WITH TEAMSTERS (August 7, 2009) Hispanic recycling workers at Republic Services, Inc. (NYSE:RSG) in Las Vegas were fired this week after expressing their desire to seek union representation with Teamsters Local 631. Management announced the first wave of firings following the launch of an organizing effort by the more than 200 workers.
“This is a blatant attempt by Republic to intimidate these workers,” said John Phillipenas, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 631. "The timing of the firings has led us to file unfair labor practice charges with the federal government. Republic underpays and exploits these workers who are only trying exercise their right to gain a voice in the workplace. This is just another example of why we need the Employee Free Choice Act.” The recycling workers say they face extremely hot, dusty and dirty conditions without adequate ventilation and cooling. Some workers toil in areas without any fans. The unacceptable working conditions were just one of the primary issues that prompted the workers to seek union representation. Teamsters Local 631 represents more than 1,200 workers at Republic including the transfer workers and drivers that service the Las Vegas area. “The Teamsters Solid Waste and Recycling Division will not stand idly by while these workers at Republic are used as pawns in the company’s attempt to sabotage their organizing efforts,” said Robert Morales, Director, Teamsters Solid Waste and Recycling Division. “The International and Local 631 will work together to ensure that Republic is not allowed to violate the rights of their workers.”
Teamsters News Link:
Wall Street Journal
In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea. Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%. Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions. Trying to regain momentum, Mr. Obama is shifting his pitch to new consumer-protection rules for insurance companies, part of a bid to win over Americans who already have coverage. David Axelrod, one of the president's top advisers, acknowledged that the White House's months-long focus on controlling medical costs hasn't worked. "Consumer protections are a lot more tangible," he said. On Wednesday, Democratic leaders in the House reached accord with conservative party members to move their bill through the last of three committees, although the full House won't vote on the measure until at least September. "Failure is not an option," said California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman. The White House is eager to show progress and build public support before Congress breaks for summer, when opponents plan to continue their campaign. "If this bill hangs out there over the August recess my guess is it will get shredded," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), said. Mr. Obama has focused sharply on cost control for businesses and Americans who have seen premiums rise faster than wages. White House officials believed this would give those with insurance a stake in the debate. But those efforts have been hurt by the debate in Washington, which has been dominated by the $1 trillion, 10-year price tag for covering the uninsured. That makes it hard to persuade people that the bill will lead to reduced costs, said Mr. Axelrod. "People are properly skeptical about any proposals out of Washington that speak to cost because they've been singed by past experience," said the senior Obama adviser. At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, N.C., Wednesday, the president outlined a series of policies, many of which the insurance industry has agreed to accept. The president said, for example, he wants rules that would require insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, cap out-of-pocket expenses, bar insurers from dropping people who become seriously ill, ban annual or lifetime coverage caps, and allow adults to stay on their parents' plans through age 26. The Blue Dogs -- a key group of conservative Democrats -- agreed to terms of Obama's health-care proposal. The development is a boost for the president, WSJ's Laura Meckler reports. "If you've got health insurance, then the reform we're proposing will also help you because it will provide you more stability and more security," Mr. Obama said. On the question of how to pay for the measure, the poll found only one idea with majority support: a surtax on the rich, the approach taken in the bill moving through the House, but which isn't expected in the Senate version. Public support for fining businesses that don't offer insurance dropped from last month, with half of those polled now in favor. Only four in 10 liked the idea of taxing insurance companies that offer particularly generous health plans, an idea that has gained currency in the Senate Finance Committee. The poll found that Mr. Obama's overall ratings have fallen amid worries over the economy, with the decline due almost entirely to dwindling support by Republicans. His score is solid by historical standards but no longer at the high-flying levels of his early weeks. Teamsters News Link: New York Times
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the Senate's failure to hold to an August deadline to pass an initial version of healthcare legislation would not derail Obama's central domestic policy objective. "I think we will have a bill by the end of the year for the president to sign on healthcare reform that controls costs, expands coverage and provides choice," Emanuel told National Public Radio. The reform package under construction in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Congress has been hit by criticism of its more than $1 trillion price tag and its scope, with debates over how to pay for the program and rein in costs. Obama has described healthcare reform as essential to longterm U.S. economic viability and had asked the Senate and House of Representatives to pass first versions before leaving for the summer recess to help keep opposition from building. But Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said on Thursday the Senate was only likely to be debate its version of the legislation in September -- throwing open the question of when and what kind of final legislation may emerge. Obama has staked significant political capital on the passage of a healthcare bill this year before lawmakers turn their focus to next year's midterm elections. "DETAILS MATTER" Speaking of ways to control costs, which has become a central sticking point on the plan, Emanuel said the White House is urging Congress to include a proposal for an outside commission on health care costs cutting. "If you want to control costs, one of the things the president talked about is to have a group of health experts to ensure that, in fact, the changes that are necessary to the system so the system is more efficient, more cost effective, are done," he said. Two committees in the House and one in the Senate have already passed versions of the bill. But another House panel and a Senate panel have bogged down in talks over how to pay for the plan and how broadly it will reshape the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry. The final bills are expected to include some form of public insurance plan to compete with private insurers and help cover most of the 46 million Americans without insurance. But Republicans have zeroed in on proposed tax hikes and heavy government involvement in healthcare to criticize the plan, while conservatives in Obama's own Democratic Party have also balked at the plan's size and expense. Leaders of a group of fiscally conservative Democrats met for nearly three hours with Emanuel and Nancy-Ann DeParle, Obama's healthcare adviser, on Thursday but came to no agreement on the bill. In the Senate, a bipartisan group of Finance Committee members continued their closed-door meetings to work through policy options on the bill. IBT News Release:
(July 20, 2009) WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Teamsters Airline Division this month launched a new Website, teamsterair.org, to more fully inform its members and to provide them with a way to communicate with each other using the Internet.
The Teamsters represent 53,000 airline workers in every class and craft at dozens of airlines, including mechanics, pilots and flight attendants at Continental Airlines, mechanics at United Airlines and mechanics at Horizon Air. Most recently the Union has added Atlas and Polar Air Cargo pilots and dispatchers and Aloha Air Cargo fleet service workers. “More and more airline workers are realizing that the Teamsters are the strongest Union in North America,” said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “We are working every day to improve the lives of our members in the aviation industry by negotiating and protecting the best contracts in the industry.” The Website, which is password protected, features forums, information about organizing campaigns and contracts, and aviation news, including legislation important to Teamsters airline workers. “The Website is the most recent development in our ongoing efforts to stay close to our airline members as we pursue our priorities — the protection and expansion of American jobs, the safety and security of the flying public and the restoration or replacement of airline industry employees’ pensions,” said Teamsters Airline Division Director David Bourne. IBT News Link: DEMOCRATS DROP KEY PART OF BILL TO ASSIST UNIONS DEMOCRATS ARE AT ODDS ON FINANCING HEALTH CARE New York Times
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions. The abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party's more liberal legislative efforts. Though the Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic. In its place, several Senate and labor officials said, the revised bill would require shorter unionization campaigns and faster elections. While disappointed with the failure of card check, union leaders argued this would still be an important victory because it would give companies less time to press workers to vote against unionizing. Some business leaders hailed the dropping of card check, while others called the move a partial triumph because the bill still contained provisions they oppose. The card-check provision was so central to the legislation that it was known as “the card-check bill.” Labor had called the bill its No. 1 objective, and both labor and business deployed their largest, most expensive lobbying campaigns ever in the battle over it. “This is a very emotional issue,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican turned Democrat who had been lobbied heavily by both sides. “I cannot remember an issue this emotional in all my years in the Senate.” Several moderate Democrats, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have voiced opposition to card check, convinced that elections were a fairer way for workers to unionize. They were swayed partly by business's vigorous campaign, arguing that card check would remove confidentiality from unionization drives and enable union organizers to bully workers into signing union cards. Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months. To further address labor's concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, key senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that labor supporters deride as “captive audience meetings.” Labor unions have pushed aggressively to enact the bill — formally, the Employee Free Choice Act. They view it as essential to reverse labor's long decline. Just 7.6 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions, one-fifth the rate of a half-century ago. Several union leaders interviewed took the senators' move in stride. One top union official, who insisted on anonymity because lawmakers and labor leaders have agreed not to discuss the status of the bill, said, “Even if card check is jettisoned to political realities, I don't think people should be despondent over that because labor law reform can take different shapes.” While voicing confidence they have the 60 votes to pass the revised bill, labor leaders acknowledged an additional hurdle: two powerful Democrats, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, are seriously ill. “This bill will bring about dramatic changes, even if card check has fallen away,” said an A.F.L.-C.I.O. official who insisted on anonymity. The official said the revised bill achieves the three things organized labor has been seeking. “Our goals,” the official said, “have always been letting employees have a real choice, having real penalties against employers who break the law in fighting unions, and having some form of binding arbitration to prevent employers from dragging their feet forever to prevent reaching a contract.” Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has led a group of six Democrats who have worked closely with labor to revamp the bill. The other senators are Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Charles E. Schumer of New York, and Mr. Specter. Labor leaders voiced confidence that if Mr. Pryor backed the compromise, Ms. Lincoln and other moderates would do likewise. Union leaders argue that under current law, unionization elections are often unfair because, they say, employers have a huge opportunity to intimidate and pressure workers during the lengthy campaigns that precede the unionization vote. Business leaders say the current system is fair, asserting that unions lose so many elections because workers oppose paying union dues and do not feel they need unions to represent them. Corporate lobbyists have indicated they would oppose fast elections, arguing that such a provision would deny employers ample opportunity to educate employees about the downside of unionizing, such as strikes and union dues. Labor leaders counter that employers will have plenty of opportunity to fight unionization, noting that many companies begin plying employees with anti-union information the day they are hired. Business also opposes the bill's provisions to have binding arbitration if an employer fails to reach a contract with a new union. Companies argue it would be wrong for government-designated arbitrators to dictate what a company's wages and benefits should be. “Binding arbitration is an absolute nonstarter for us,” said Mark McKinnon, a spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute, a business group opposing the bill. “We see it as a hostile act to have arbitrators telling businesses what they have to do.” Several union officials said that once the senators' revisions became public, some union presidents who are card-check enthusiasts might attack the changes, call for scrapping the revisions and demand an up-or-down Senate vote on a bill with card check. Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harkin, declined to discuss details of the bill. “Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to,” she said. Union officials have urged the White House and Senate leaders to schedule a vote this month. But Senate leaders have told labor that the Senate is so preoccupied with health care legislation that September would be the earliest time to take up the pro-union legislation. IBT News Link:
Paying for the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost of the health care legislation is arguably the biggest hurdle confronting lawmakers and the White House as they pursue President Obama's top policy goal of extending health coverage to all Americans and curtailing the steep rise in the cost of medical care. Senate negotiators had been eyeing a tax on some employer-provided health benefits but shifted course this week after the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Democrats voiced opposition. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said Thursday that the House bill would not tax those benefits. Instead, the House Ways and Means Committee was said to be nearing agreement on an income tax surcharge of 2 percent or more on Americans with the highest incomes — those earning more than $250,000. The surtax would rise for those earning $500,000 and rise again for those earning more than $1 million. At the same time, aides said that the House was moving away from other ideas, including a proposed sales tax on sodas and other sugary drinks and a new payroll tax of 0.3 percent to be paid by employees and employers. The White House has not expressed a position on the surtax, but lawmakers said they had heard no objections so far. The chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who visited the Capitol twice this week to discuss health care proposals with House Democrats, has said Mr. Obama would prefer that money to pay for the legislation come from within the health care system. But unlike a tax on employer-provided benefits, which Mr. Obama opposed during the presidential campaign, a tax on the wealthy would be in keeping with his promise not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year. Meanwhile, Senate negotiators went back to the drawing board and were looking at an array of options. And they seemed to be narrowing their focus on a plan that would tax only the most generous employer-provided health plans — those worth $25,000 or more a year — as well as a modified limit on tax deductions proposed by Mr. Obama. The president, in his initial budget, had called for capping certain deductions, including those for charitable contributions, at the 28 percent income tax bracket, an idea initially rejected by a number of Democrats in Congress. But some lawmakers who opposed Mr. Obama at that point said they were willing to consider a higher limit — at the 35 percent bracket — that could still generate roughly $90 billion in revenue over 10 years to help pay for the health care overhaul, presuming the highest tax bracket reverts to 39 percent if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. The tax on more generous health insurance plans was projected to generate another $90 billion, and would bring Senate negotiators, led by Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, more than halfway to the $320 billion in revenue that they had expected from a wider tax on employer-provided benefits. Lawmakers taking part in the Senate negotiations said Republicans and several moderate Democrats would oppose an income tax surcharge on the wealthy. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, called the surtax “non-negotiable.” And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who is also on the Finance Committee, said it was among the “less viable” options under consideration. Mr. Baucus said lawmakers had redoubled efforts to find additional savings to help pay for the bill. “Senators don't like to raise revenues,” he said, using the favored euphemism for tax increases. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and a key player in the talks, said lawmakers were taking their time to go through a full range of options. “Time spent on reconnaissance is never wasted,” Mr. Conrad said, quoting an old military friend. Senators were also considering a plan to apply the Medicare payroll tax of 1.45 percent to non-wage income like dividends and capital gains. And in yet another potential obstacle, 40 House Democrats in the fiscally conservative blue-dog coalition voiced opposition to the emerging legislation and apprehension over potential new taxes. House leaders swiftly called a meeting with the blue dogs to begin addressing their concerns. In addition to the income surtax on the wealthy, House Democrats were considering an array of other ideas. One would bar prescription drug companies from deducting the cost of advertisements as a business expense on their corporate tax returns. Another would end a tax break for health care flexible spending accounts, which can now be used to cover out-of-pocket medical costs.
IBT News Links:
ONE: FRANKEN WINS SENATE BATTLE Washington Post (July 1, 2009) The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared comedian-turned-politician Al Franken the winner of the state's U.S. Senate race, ending an eight-month-long election saga and giving Democrats a 60-seat majority that theoretically would allow them to block GOP filibusters. In a unanimous ruling, the court rejected Republican Norm Coleman's legal arguments that some absentee ballots had been improperly counted and that some localities had used inconsistent standards in counting votes. The ruling led Coleman to concede his Senate seat to Franken, who could be sworn in as soon as next week, when the Senate returns from a recess. "The Supreme Court has spoken. We have a United States senator," Coleman said in a news conference outside his home in St. Paul. "It's time to move forward." Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signed the election certificate declaring Franken the winner yesterday evening. The Democrats now have their largest majority in the Senate since 1978, but their ability to prevent filibusters as they attempt to push President Obama's agenda is likely to prove illusory. A pair of prominent Democrats, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), have missed a raft of votes this year because of illness and, although Byrd was released from a Washington area hospital yesterday, it is unclear how often either will be present in the chamber. Efforts to maintain party unity are also hampered by the presence of a clutch of centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), who have said they oppose the public option in health-care reform legislation that would seek to create a government program to compete with private insurers. A number of Senate Democrats representing states that rely heavily on manufacturing jobs have also expressed concern about the climate-change bill, another Obama priority, that passed the House last week. "The idea that you've got 60 reliable Democrats for votes for sweeping policy change simply doesn't work; it's not the reality of it," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "The larger challenge for [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid or Barack Obama is managing expectations of people who are thinking: When you get 60 votes, you get do to whatever you want. And they most assuredly do not." In a statement, the White House said Obama looks "forward to working with Senator-Elect Franken to build a new foundation for growth and prosperity by lowering health care costs and investing in the kind of clean energy jobs and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century." Franken, joined by wife Franni at a news conference in front of their home in Minneapolis, said, "I can't wait to get started." But he played down the importance of his becoming the 60th Democrat in the chamber. "Sixty is a magic number, but it isn't," Franken said, "because we know that we have senators who -- Republicans who are going to vote with the Democrats, with a majority of Democrats on certain votes, and Democrats that are going to vote with majority Republicans on others. So it's not quite a magic number as some people may say. But I hope we do get President Obama's agenda through." Although he will be a backbencher in his caucus, he will be thrust almost immediately into one of the summer's highest-profile pieces of political theater, the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Democrats have been holding a seat on the Judiciary Committee for the Harvard-educated Franken, who will also serve on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a prime perch in the health-care debate. The longtime Democratic activist is likely to be a reliable vote for the party on nearly every issue and has largely praised Obama's performance thus far. But beyond the Sotomayor hearings, Franken has indicated that he will attempt to keep a low profile in Washington. In an interview this year, he said he would seek to replicate the model of former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who generally eschewed major speeches in her first few years on Capitol Hill to focus on learning the internal dynamics of the Senate and tried to avoid upstaging her colleagues. "A lot of people have been sort of saying, 'You should really study Hillary's model of being a senator,' " Franken said. "She worked across party lines, wasn't grabbing the microphone." Before his Senate bid, Franken had gained a reputation as a sharply partisan and acerbic Democrat who mocked Republicans but sometimes worried Democrats with his fiery commentaries on television and radio. After leaving "Saturday Night Live" in 1995, he wrote books, including "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," and hosted a show on the liberal Air America network. But he largely downplayed his humor, temper and partisan background in his two-year campaign against Coleman, whom he repeatedly linked to President George W. Bush. Franken said little publicly during the post-election legal process, with an eye toward winning over the 57 percent of Minnesota voters who backed either Coleman or independent candidate Dean Barkley in the Nov. 4 vote. A few days after the election, Coleman led the race by 206 votes out of almost 3 million cast, but a statewide recount that lasted until January found that after counting absentee ballots that had been improperly excluded, Franken was ahead by 225 votes. Coleman filed a formal contest of the election in January, resulting in a two-month-long trial at which more absentee ballots were counted, and Franken emerged with a 312-vote lead. Coleman appealed the district court's decision in April. Yesterday, Coleman acknowledged that Minnesotans were ready to move past the drama. "The election of November, that was a long time ago; 2008 is over," he said. TWO: LIVE. FROM ST. PAUL. IT’S… Washington Post (July 1, 2009) Al Franken. Finally. Who in his or her right mind would have thought last November that it would take until July to seat Franken? The Democrats' patience had a down side and an up side. The down side is that the party was short one critical vote in the Senate. It's possible that the stimulus package would have been better if Franken had been there. It would not have been subjected to quite so many of the compromises that made it smaller and less effective. The trajectory of the health care battle would have been better, too. But the upside is that no one can accuse the Senate's Democratic majority of ramming through Franken's seating prematurely. In the 1980s, House Democrats created extraordinary bad blood among Republicans (even moderates) with their aggressiveness in a battle over a closely fought seat in Indiana. Many argue that the bitterness created by the Indiana fight led to the Gingrich revolution. Democrats avoided that this time. One can now hope that Franken's seating will make it less likely that Democrats concede more than they have to on health care. The worst outcome would be reform so small and crabbed that it disappoints voters who actually expect real change. Writing for The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn offers the cautionary tale of the 1988 Catastrophic Coverage Act, where senior citizens experienced the costs before they felt the benefits and eventually forced its repeal. Here is Jonathan's conclusion:
IBT News: NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251 (1975): The employer violated [Section] 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it interfered with, restrained, and coerced the individual right of an employee, protected by [Section] 7, "to engage in … concerted activities for … mutual aid or protection," when it denied the employee's request for the presence of her union representative at the investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believed would result in disciplinary action. SO, WHAT ARE WEINGARTEN RIGHTS? Weingarten Rights. Most union members have heard this term. Many shop stewards have the right to protect their members because of it. But what is the origin of these rights? What lies behind one of the most significant labor law rulings in recent history? For thirty years, Weingarten has been an often-used word in the vocabulary of union advocates.
Here is the story: J. Weingarten, Inc. operated a large chain of convenient stores, several of which allowed customers to purchase packaged meals. In June 1972, Ms. Leura Collins, a lunch-counter clerk at Store No. 98 in Houston, Texas, was called into the manager's office and interrogated by her manager and a loss prevention investigator employed by the store. Unknown to Ms. Collins, this investigator had been observing her for the past two days on the basis of a report that she was stealing from the register. Although this particular investigation uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing on Ms. Collins' part, another manager learned (from a coworker) that she "had purchased a [$2.98] box of chicken … but had placed only $1.00 in the cash register." During the interview, Ms. Collins, a member of Retail Clerks Local Union No. 455, requested several times that her steward or another union representative be present. When questioned about the chicken, Ms. Collins replied that she only took a dollar's worth, but was forced to use a large-size box since the small ones were not available. The investigator went to confirm this; upon his return he "told Collins that her explanation had checked out [and] that he was sorry if he had inconvenienced her, and that the matter was closed." It was at this point that Ms. Collins finally broke down, exclaiming that the only thing the company ever gave her was a free lunch. Hearing this, the manager and the investigator were surprised, since Store No. 98 had no such policy. Once again Ms. Collins was interrogated, once again she requested representation and once again it was denied. The investigator then asked her to sign a statement that claimed she owed the company $160 for those "free" lunches. She refused. In Store No.2, where she had previously worked [1961-1970], free lunches were policy. It was later learned that other J. Weingarten employees, including the manager, took "free" lunches, since the company had no official policy that forbade it, a fact confirmed to the investigator who then ended the interview. Upon leaving, Ms. Collins was asked by the manager "not to discuss the matter with anyone because he considered it a private matter between her and the company [and] of no concern to others." However, Ms. Collins reported this incident to her union and an unfair labor charge was filed. THE PURPOSEOne vital function of the steward is to prevent an employer from coercing or intimidating employees into confessing misconduct, especially in situations where the supervisor (or any other employer representative) engages in interrogatory techniques.
*Note: This opinion was delivered by Justice William Brennan and was joined by Justices Douglas, White, Marshall, Blackmun and Rehnquist [the current Chief Justice]. The dissenting opinion was filed by Chief Justice Warren Burger and joined by Justice Powell. A lone employee, confronted by the employer's investigation and the possibility of discipline, may be either too afraid to face accusations, too inarticulate to accurately explain, or simply to uniformed to raise extenuating factors. A knowledgeable union representative could assist this employee by drawing out favorable facts or applicable mitigating circumstances. A tangible knowledge of Weingarten is vital, since it allows the steward to:
THE INVESTIGATORY INTERVIEW
EDUCATING MEMBERS Many local union contracts contain Weingarten in their language, such as this example: The employer recognizes the employee's right to be given representation by a steward, or a designated alternate, at any investigatory interview. The employer will remind the employee of this right at the time that the employer requests the investigatory interview. Many local unions provide their members with wallet-sized cards that read: If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative, officer, or steward be present at this meeting. Until my representative arrives, I choose not to participate in this discussion. WEINGARTEN AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEESThe original applications of Weingarten covered only those employers under the National Labor Relations Act; therefore, it did not address public employers. However, each state has its own laws for public sector employees – and, each state will have different views on the right to union representation. For example, California public employees have the same rights during an investigatory interview, as do private sector employees. In any case, public sector employees are protected by the due process tenets provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Note: Weingarten Cards (English and Spanish) can be ordered through the Teamsters Education Department.
Teamsters News Link: Senate leaders said they are still on track to put a bill on the floor by midsummer, but some Democrats privately acknowledged that piecing together a measure that will expand coverage to the uninsured without breaking the budget is proving excruciatingly difficult -- particularly if the goal is to pass a bill with Republican support.
"A bipartisan bill takes far more time than not," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which had been expected to unveil a package of reforms by tomorrow and hold a committee vote next week. Amid concerns about cost from Republicans and some Democrats, Baucus said he has agreed "to slow things down" and that committee action could be delayed until after the Fourth of July recess. The Finance Committee package is eagerly awaited, because lawmakers, lobbyists and reform advocates believe that panel has the best chance of producing a measure that can win broad support. Baucus is working closely with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and other Republicans on the panel to hammer out a plan, along with a proposal to pay for it. That effort hit a snag earlier this week when the Congressional Budget Office attached a $1.6 trillion price tag to a preliminary version -- far more than many senators are prepared to spend. The figure shocked key Democrats, who were scrambling yesterday to make adjustments that would slash the price by more than a third. Among the changes under discussion, according to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.): tightening eligibility for federal subsidies to purchase insurance, which had been set at 400 percent of the federal poverty level; and potentially requiring businesses to pay more if they decide not to provide insurance coverage to their workers. Committee members also were still struggling with the shape of a government-sponsored insurance plan that would be available to people who could not get coverage elsewhere. Republicans are opposed to any government-run plan, though they are willing to consider Conrad's proposal to form insurance cooperatives run by consumers. The panel also had yet to settle on a financing package, though aides said members are looking at imposing a tax on the health premiums millions of families receive through their employers, with any premiums over $17,000 a year being taxed as income beginning in 2013. Setting the cap that high would generate less revenue than Democrats had hoped for, a Finance Committee aide said, forcing them to revisit an idea they had once flatly rejected: President Obama's proposal to tax high-earning families by limiting the value of their itemized deductions. Emerging from a closed-door meeting of the panel, Baucus vowed that the final bill would clock in at less than $1 trillion over the next decade and that the committee would offer a plan to cover the entire cost. "We'll be ready when we're ready," Baucus said, "but we're not there yet." Delicate deal-making also was going on behind the scenes at the White House, where administration officials were talking to drugmakers about voluntarily expanding prescription-drug benefits for Medicare recipients, a move that could win over skeptical seniors as well as their representatives in Congress, said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "That would be a good selling point for the legislation," Hoyer said, offering an "enhancement" to offset the inevitable "downsides" of reform with which "people are going to be upset." Meanwhile, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was quickly mired in acrimony as it opened debate on a different plan that represents the hopes of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) -- filling in for the ailing chairman, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- immediately came under fire from Republicans, who questioned how they could act on a bill that is not yet complete. The measure has been given only a partial price tag by the Congressional Budget Office, which said its provision for expanding coverage would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years and cover 16 million additional people -- about a third of the estimated 46 million Americans who do not have insurance today. Pointing to the 600-plus page bill and 388 amendments, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said it would be "a joke if we run through this stack of papers." Despite the rancor and the delay, lawmakers in both parties said they remain hopeful that agreement can be reached to move the issue forward. Conrad called the new timetable "much more realistic" -- and more conducive to producing a better final bill. "Delay is not a bad thing if you are striving for some kind of bipartisan agreement," agreed Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). Asked whether such a deal seems likely, Roberts smiled and said: "Anything is possible."
Teamsters News Link:
CTV
(June 15, 2009) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, North America's largest Union, will grow by tens of thousands of members this year despite the current economic downturn, the head of the Union said Tuesday. James P. Hoffa, general president of the Teamsters, has managed to grow the Union in the last couple of years to reach a membership of 1.4 million. The Union added 40,000 members — from bus drivers to mechanics to railway workers — in 2008 alone. Hoffa, the son of former Teamsters general president James R. Hoffa, is in Ottawa this week to attend the Teamsters Canada Convention. According to Hoffa, the bad news coming out of the automotive sector, specifically the significant concessions made by Union members as part of the effort to keep companies such as Chrysler and GM afloat, do not suggest that Unions are losing their influence in North America. "If we get a strong economy and we get a rebound, there's going to be an end to these concessions," Hoffa said Tuesday during an interview with Canada AM. He called the auto industry's troubles "unique" and pointed to the fact that a recent labour deal with parcel carrier UPS did not include any labour concessions by the Company's 250,000 unionized workers. Hoffa said he is hopeful that U.S. President Barack Obama will sign the Employee Free Choice Act, which will restore American workers' rights to choose whether they will join a Union. The Act, which was ignored by former U.S. President George W. Bush, has bipartisan support in Congress. Hoffa said the Union would also like to see changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement that would stop companies from closing shop in Canada and the United States to take advantage of cheaper labour in Mexico. Improved labour laws and a re-worked NAFTA agreement "will really help us revitalize the middle class and organize to help more people enjoy the dream of having a good life," Hoffa said. He said his famous father would be proud of the work he is doing to grow the Union and give millions of workers better working conditions. "We're basically carrying on in his work. All of us are dedicated to the Teamsters Union, as he was," Hoffa said. "So there's a lot of work to be done here, these are challenging times, but I think the Teamsters are up to it."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But in his appearances, which are not coordinated with the administration, Dean is helping to fuel what could become a calamity for the White House. 
ROBERT MORALES
The NLRA protects union concerted activities, which includes a member's right to request union representation during investigatory interviews. This right was recognized in 1975 with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in NLRB v. J. Weingarten. (420 U.S. 251)* and became known as a member's Weingarten Right.
TEAMSTERS CANADA BACKGROUND