Teamsters News Link:
FIXING HEALTH CARE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Wall Street Journal
(August 28, 2009) You have probably heard the horror stories about President Barack Obama's health-care proposals leading to rationed care and bankrupt businesses and governments. Those claims are flat wrong. The real horror story is not what health-care reform will bring. It's what's already happening.
There has been a lot of talk about the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. But health-care reform is just as important to the majority of Americans who have health insurance now. Absent reform, the price of an average family's insurance will nearly double over the next decade — to $25,000 from $13,000.
No less troubling are the stories … from CEOs, entrepreneurs and workers. Rising health-care costs are crushing American companies — particularly small businesses that are the source of much of our economic vitality.
In 1960, U.S. firms spent 1.2% of their payroll on health insurance. In 2006, they spent 9.9%. Costs rising at this rate are unsustainable and put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that almost universally have lighter health-care burdens. It also destroys U.S. jobs.
Last month, the nonpartisan Rand Corporation released a study that looked at 37 industries from 1987 to 2005 and concluded that excess health-care costs were causing significant job losses as well as revenue and output losses for many American industries. After controlling for other factors, sectors with the highest percentage of employer-sponsored health care (such as the automotive industry) had worse performances than industries in which employer health coverage is uncommon.
These escalating costs have been passed on to the middle class in the form of higher prices and flat wages. Money that would have gone to raises has instead been spent on health-care premiums that have doubled over the past nine years.
The cost pressure is particularly acute for small businesses, which, on average, pay 18% more per worker than large firms for the same health-insurance policies. They pay more because they have a smaller risk pool and have to absorb higher broker fees and administrative costs per worker. As a result, many small businesses don't offer health coverage. Just 49% of firms with three to nine workers and 78% of firms with 10 to 24 workers offered health plans in 2008, while 99% of firms with over 200 workers did.
It's hard to know how much health-care costs affect small businesses. But it is clear that rising costs don't help them. In the third quarter of 2008, half of all private-sector job losses occurred in companies with fewer than 20 employees.
The pernicious price of runaway health-care costs also has a dampening effect on entrepreneurship.
How many aspiring owners of businesses are locked in jobs they don't like for fear that striking out on their own would cause them to lose their health insurance? The Small Business Majority, a national advocacy group, estimates there are as many as 1.6 million.
In the short term, health-care costs pose a major problem for companies and their employees. In the medium and long-term, these costs pose serious challenges to our economy. This year, health-care expenditures are expected to account for about 18% of our GDP. Without reform, that share is projected to rise to 28% in 2030 and to 34% in 2040. When one out of every three dollars is spent on health care, we will face a situation in which companies can no longer provide insurance. At the same time, if we don't address rising federal health-care costs, we will likely face either much higher taxes or unsustainable deficits that could spike interest rates and threaten capital formation.
Neither option is a future any of us wants to contemplate.
It is clear that demographic and structural trends are leading us toward worse health care and higher costs for employers, workers and governments. But America has a chance to avoid that fate. President Obama has articulated three broad criteria for reform. Reduce costs, protect Americans' choice of doctors and insurance plans, and assure quality and affordable health care for any American who wants it.
The bills working through Congress are moving in the right direction, and despite some setbacks, this nation is closer to fundamental health-care reform than we have ever been.
We must keep moving forward. We are in a twilight period, that precious moment before a problem becomes a crisis. What we do in the coming months will play a big role in determining America's competitiveness and prosperity for decades to come. There is a path toward a more sustainable and prosperous future for America. It's imperative that we take it. The alternative is frightening.
Washington State Labor Council Report:
OUTSIDE THE ECHO CHAMBER, PART 3
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS SAVING WASHINGTON STATE BUSINESSES, JOBS AMID RECESSION
(August 14, 2009) Imagine a company that does business in every county in Washington state, pumping billions in payroll dollars into our economy. Better still, this company is counter-cyclical, ramping up hiring and payroll when the state economy is struggling.
The rest of the business community and public officials all benefit from this company thanks to increased consumer spending and tax revenues to fund improved public services. So you'd think everyone would go to extraordinary lengths to keep this company healthy and strong, right?
That "company" exists. It’s called our Unemployment Insurance system, and in the last 18 months it’s pumped some $5 billion into our state economy. But some political and business leaders seem more intent on undermining the U.I. system than strengthening it. Ignoring its benefits, and the many businesses and jobs it has preserved, they decry its costs and seek to cut its benefits.
Washington has one of the healthiest U.I. systems in the nation. About 18 months into this recession, it is sufficiently funded that our state can afford a major new U.I. tax cut that takes effect Jan. 1, 2010, saving employers hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while also temporarily increasing U.I. benefits to laid-off workers.
In contrast, many states -- including every state considered to be our rivals for Boeing and other aerospace industry jobs -- have U.I. systems that are now insolvent. Those states are borrowing billions from the federal government that will have to be repaid by raising employers’ taxes amid the recession.
DEEP IN THE HEART OF TAXES
This month, the president of the Association of Washington Business wrote a column praising Texas, one of our state’s aerospace industry competitors, for keeping its unemployment insurance taxes low and for refusing to accept federal stimulus grants for its U.I. system.
Gov. Rick Perry made Texas one of just four states to refuse the $7 billion in grants because Texas would have to fix its outdated eligibility rules to cover more low-wage, part-time and female workers. Texas ranks dead last among states with just 35% of its unemployed workers getting benefits, according to the Department of Labor. The U.S. average is 58%.
The low U.I. taxes in Texas -- less than half the national average -- may make the hearts of Washington’s business-lobbying echo chamber go a-flutter, but all is not well in the Lone Star State.
The Texas system is insolvent. (So are the U.I. systems in our aerospace competitor states of North Carolina and South Carolina, and Kansas is getting there.) It went broke due to the recession -- which is what it’s there for. Funds were insufficient to cover even the notoriously stingy benefits that just one in three Texans are qualified to receive during this downturn.
The Texas Workforce Commission projects the state’s U.I. fund will be underfunded by $1.5 billion by October. Meanwhile, Gov. Perry still refuses to accept the $556 million in federal aid offered to him, a stance scoring political points with his state’s right-wing conservatives who oppose President Obama’s stimulus plan. But it’s going to cost Texas businesses.
 Washington State’s Unemployment Insurance system provides a safety net both for families who have lost their sources of income through no fault of their own, and also for businesses. (Photo courtesy of Washington State Labor Council.) |
The state will have to raise taxes -- nearly doubling them by one estimate. Gov. Perry is trying to postpone the tax hike until after his 2010 re-election bid by selling an estimated $2 billion in bonds to repay the feds. So in 2011, employers will not only pay a U.I. "deficit assessment" but also Installment #1 of a "bond obligation assessment" lasting several years.
In contrast, Washington’s U.I. fund is stable and in no danger of insolvency. This year, state legislators temporarily boosted benefits and passed a $377 million U.I. tax cut. So employers here get a double stimulus in this recession: billions in consumer spending and a tax cut.
So, which state has a better business climate on this issue? One with responsible tax rates that can pump billions into the state economy and cut employer taxes when both are most needed? Or one with artificially low taxes that not only pays lower benefits -- providing less of an economic safety net for businesses -- but also requires a major tax increase amid a recession?
WHAT IS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE?
One reason the U.S. economy spiraled into the Great Depression was that millions of Americans lost their jobs, and their ability to pay for the basic goods and services needed to survive. This lack of consumer spending led to more business closures and more layoffs. And so on.
That’s why in 1935 the unemployment insurance system was established and it’s largely why America has kept economic recessions from spiraling into depressions since then. Jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes, states manage the programs and determine the benefit levels and taxes necessary to fund them. Those taxes are experience-rated, meaning that employers that lay off workers pay higher taxes, just like employers with high work injury rates pay higher workers’ compensation premiums.
The U.I. system is designed not only as a safety net for families who’ve lost their sources of income through no fault of their own, but also as a safety net for businesses. It provides economic stability in times of recession, like the current one.
U.I. also helps businesses maintain a stable, skilled workforce during economic downturns, instead of forcing laid-off workers from their homes or to other states in search of employment. Boeing and other companies that historically have laid off workers during downturns and recalled them when conditions improve have especially benefited.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: THE BEST STIMULUS
Our U.I. system provides temporary partial wage replacement for struggling families, helping them pay rent and keeping food on their tables. Since February 2008, when the national recession hit Washington and job losses began, about $3 billion in benefits have been paid out in our state, according to Employment Security Department data.
The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that for every $1 of benefits, $1.64 of purchasing power is created in the economy. Unemployment benefits are the best kind of economic stimulus because recipients immediately spend their money, which then gets circulated in local economies. That’s why their economic impact is magnified.
In the current recession, our unemployment insurance system has created $5 billion in purchasing power on Main Street in Washington: $85 million in Benton County, $130 million in Whatcom, $144 million in Yakima, $156 in Thurston, $266 million in Clark, $295 million in Spokane, $634 million in Pierce, $646 million in Snohomish, and about $1.5 billion in King.
This money is saving jobs and businesses. That’s what it’s designed to do, and that’s what it’s doing every day.
WHAT DOES IT COST?
Employers in Washington pay an average tax rate of 0.98%, the seventh highest rate in the nation, according to 2008 U.S. Department of Labor data. The national average is 0.65%. By another measure, employers here paid an average $437 per covered employee in 2008, which ties us with Connecticut for seventh highest.
But most employers here pay far less. About 55% of Washington employers pay 0.35%, about one-third of the state’s average tax rate. Plus, a significant new tax cut will take effect on Jan. 1, 2010, that promises to drop Washington in these rankings as other states raise taxes to cover benefits and replenish empty U.I. trust funds.
2003 U.I. "REFORM"
In 2003, the State Legislature sought to approve a package of tax incentives and other legislation to encourage Boeing to choose Washington as the final assembly site for its 787 Dreamliner. Boeing wanted to address a cross-subsidy issue whereby it was paying more than its share of U.I. taxes to subsidize high-unemployment industries at the maximum tax rate, like homebuilders. Labor-business negotiations led to a proposal that took a huge bite out the cross-subsidy issue, saved Boeing $5-7 million a year, prevented a scheduled tax increase for all employers and made significant benefit concessions.
But given Boeing’s momentum, business lobbyists sensed they could get even more. They began separately negotiating with legislative leaders and during a second overtime session in June 2003, without so much as a public hearing before the vote, they succeeded in passing sweeping legislation that made dramatic changes to the U.I. system. It drastically cut benefits, cut the maximum benefit duration from 30 to 26 weeks and created significant new eligibility restrictions.
In the years since, acknowledging that the 2003 U.I. cuts unfairly and unnecessarily harmed laid-off workers, the Legislature took steps to mitigate some of the damage done.
Certain business lobbyists and elected officials have suggested that the restoration of some of the benefits cut in 2003 amounted to reneging on the 787 deal with Boeing. The truth is, Boeing supported the biggest and most contentious restoration of benefits in 2005, testifying in support of EHB 2255 to restore two-quarter averaging for benefit calculation.
WHAT’S NEXT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE?
Washington’s labor movement believes we should be looking at ways to strengthen our unemployment insurance system by expanding eligibility. This would further boost our economy and bring more federal dollars to the state.
Ideological efforts to slash benefits in the name of "improving our state business climate" deliberately ignore the positive impact of our U.I. system, and should be opposed.
NOTE: LOCAL 174 IS A WSLC AFFILIATE
The Teamsters Union represents everyone from A to Z — from airline pilots to zookeepers. It is a Change to Win Coalition Union no longer affiliated with the national AFL-CIO; however, the following Teamsters Union Locals have signed Solidarity Charters to retain their affiliation with the Washington State Labor Council: Local 174, Tukwila; Local 117, Tukwila; Local 231, Bellingham-Mt. Vernon; Local 252, Centralia-Chehalis-Olympia; and Local 767M, the Graphic Communications Conference, Kent.
Teamsters News Link:
SUPPORTERS OF HEALTH CARE CHANGE PREPARE COUNTERATTACK
Wall Street Journal
(August 14, 2009) The opposition to the health-care overhaul being voiced at town-hall meetings this month caught supporters by surprise. Unions and other supporters of the Democratic health program now have plans to confront opponents, including, if necessary, outshouting them at meetings.
Liberal groups have been taken off guard at recent town-hall meetings by the aggressive tactics used by conservatives opposing Obama's health plan. But now they're fighting back, WSJ's Naftali Bendavid reports.
The AFL-CIO has allocated $15 million for mobilization and communication. Individual unions plan to advertise in states with moderate Democratic lawmakers. The Service Employees International Union is sending members to more than 400 events this month, including an "ambulance tour" across Montana, home of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a key player in the health debate.
"America deserves an honest, civil discussion on how to fix our broken health-care system," said SEIU President Andy Stern.
Health Care for America Now, a coalition of groups supporting President Barack Obama's health push, said Thursday it was expanding an ad campaign in the home states of key lawmakers. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees kicked off a "highway to health care" bus tour Wednesday.
"We are absolutely surprised at the way that the right focused so much on this as soon as August began," said Richard Kirsch, campaign manager for HCAN.
Liberal groups are dispatching members to town-hall meetings with the goal of persuading lawmakers that they are the majority. They are supplying signs that can be printed from Web sites, telling members to buttonhole reporters, and giving suggestions for confronting adversaries.
"Interrupt them when they get disruptive and refocus the meeting," HCAN says in one message to members. "Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements."
Mr. Obama himself is holding town meetings, heading to Montana on Friday and Colorado on Saturday. Some progressives grumble that Mr. Obama and his allies should have been better prepared for the backlash to the health-care plans.
Stephen Gauthier, a machinist with General Electric Co. and a member of the industrial union IUE-CWA, joined several hundred union members Tuesday outside a Portsmouth, N.H., high school where Mr. Obama was holding a town meeting.
"We're primarily trying to keep it orderly and decent," said Mr. Gauthier, 58, as supporters chanted "health care for all" and opponents shouted anti-Obama comments. "There are protesters here that are just disrupting the solution."
Opponents of the health-care proposals say they're skeptical that supporters can match their passion and turnout.
"People only come out if they really care," said Amy Menefee, spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, which encourages conservatives to attend the meetings. "It will be interesting to see if the people on the other side will take time off from work and drive long distances."
Democrats depict the protesters as hooligans whipped into a frenzy by conservative groups, while Republicans describe them as ordinary citizens fed up with Mr. Obama's overreaching.
FreedomWorks, a conservative group that asks members to attend town-hall meetings, issued a sarcastic "apology" Tuesday to liberals. "Apparently, the very act of showing up and having an opinion is, in effect, to act like a 'thug,' " the group said.
Liberals are hoping to turn the tide before Congress returns to Washington in September, and are even giving members of Congress tips for limiting ugly confrontations, such as holding their town meetings in churches. "It's much harder for people to scream expletives and bring swastikas into a church," Mr. Kirsch said.
Teamsters News Link:
CENTRIST DEMOCRATS UPBEAT ON HEALTH CARE BILL
New York Times
(August 6, 2009) After a meeting among Senate Democrats to hone their message on revamping health care, some centrist lawmakers who could deliver crucial votes expressed confidence Wednesday that they would be able to sign on to the legislation and sell it to their constituents back home.
 U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D.-Indiana) said it was clear Congress has to do three things: control costs for Americans who already have insurance, slow the growth in spending on Medicaid and Medicare to ease the deficit, and provide health coverage to the millions of uninsured. |
One of them, Senator Evan Bayh, who is up for re-election next year in the swing state of Indiana, said it was clear to everyone that Congress needed to do three things: control costs for Americans who already have insurance, slow the growth in spending on Medicaid and Medicare to ease the deficit, and provide health coverage to the millions of uninsured.
“Call me an optimist, in spite of all the evidence,” Mr. Bayh said. “But I think the chances are better than 50-50 that we'll get this done.”
Some Democrats, anticipating raucous debate in their home states in coming weeks, expressed frustration that they were leaving Friday for the summer recess without a consolidated proposal to rally behind. The Senate health committee has approved a bill, as have three committees in the House, but those measures were unanimously opposed by Republicans.
“I wish we had a unified bill at this point,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the acting chairman of the health committee. “We don't. But there is something for people to talk about in very concrete terms. And I think we ought to. Just saying, ‘Look, we don't have a bill yet' leaves the field to those who want to accuse us of killing older people and nationalizing health care with a government-run plan.”
Other Democratic senators voiced concern that they would be forced to defend tax increases in the House bill, including a surtax on high-income Americans that would be expected to raise $544 billion over 10 years, roughly half the cost of the legislation. Senators of both parties generally oppose that tax.
But lawmakers said there was much they could support in the presentations made at Wednesday's meeting by Mr. Dodd and Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is leading efforts to develop a compromise bill in the Finance Committee, where he is chairman.
“There's a lot of unanimity in the caucus,” said Senator Mark Udall, a freshman Democrat from Colorado.
President Obama, underscoring his call for a bipartisan bill, invited a group of six negotiators on the Finance Committee — three Democrats and three Republicans — to meet with him at the White House on Thursday. Even as debate begins to heat up around the country, that bipartisan group has continued to slog its way through complex sections of the bill.
Mr. Bayh said he was eager to see what the group put forward to bridge outstanding differences. But he was pleased enough with what he heard at the Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday that he chimed in with a rare comment, suggesting that many of the proposals could win the 60 votes typically needed to pass legislation in the Senate.
“Let's not lose sight of the historic advancements that we all agree we can make,” he said, “starting with eliminating pre-existing conditions as a reason for people not getting insurance, no lifetime caps so if you get a catastrophic illness you are not going to lose your coverage.”
Mr. Bayh also cited an expansion of Medicaid, subsidies to help working families buy insurance, incentives for small businesses to provide insurance to employees and the closing of a gap in Medicare drug coverage — all of them provisions “I strongly support,” he said, “and you'd get 60 votes for those right now.”
Lawmakers said Mr. Baucus and another Democratic negotiator on the Finance Committee, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, had told them that the Republican negotiators seemed sincere in seeking a deal.
“Max has a heartfelt conviction, and Kent does too, that they are still making a bona fide effort to try and forge a consensus,” Mr. Bayh said.
But Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have left open the possibility of pushing ahead without Republican support if there is no deal by mid-September.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, warned against rushing. “One of the things that makes it very difficult for us are these artificial deadlines,” Mr. Grassley said.
“There's no rhetoric in our meetings — it's all discussion,” he added. “You have got to compare where the work is going on, and that's in Senator Baucus's office, versus the political rhetoric.”
With the Senate recess nearing and the House already on vacation, White House officials stepped up efforts to respond to what they see as a blizzard of misinformation about Mr. Obama's health care proposals. And they asked people to report examples to the government.
“Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help,” Macon Phillips, the director of new media for Mr. Obama, wrote on the White House blog. “If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, urged Mr. Obama to “cease this program,” adding, “I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech.”
Teamsters News Link:
PROTESTS AT DEMOCRATS’ HEALTH CARE EVENTS SPARK POLITICAL TUG OF WAR
Washington Post - Online
 |
|
| Several conservative groups with obvious ties to Republican lobbyists and former GOP officeholders have taken the lead in organizing opposition to President Obama’s healh care reform suggestions. But Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele (photo above) denies that his party is behind the town hall uproars, intimating that complaining Democratic lawmakers are hallucinating or lying for political profit. |
As House members head home for the August recess, some Democrats have been met by taunts, jeers and, in one case, an effigy. Video footage of the sometimes-belligerent protests has taken hold online and on television in a relatively quiet news week, threatening to drown out any health-care debate.
That has fed a political tug of war over whether the protests, at gatherings from Pennsylvania to Texas to Wisconsin, have been organized by conservative groups or sparked by average citizens voicing their own displeasure.
Democrats have sought to marginalize the objections as part of a fringe movement, prompting House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to respond Wednesday: "Democrats are in denial. Instead of acknowledging the widespread anger millions of Americans are feeling this summer toward Democrat-controlled Washington, Washington Democrats are trying to dismiss it as a fabrication."
SEEKING A MIDDLE GROUND
Amid the rancorous partisanship, some political figures have tried to find a middle ground.
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) said Wednesday, "We have to be careful we don't just jump to the conclusion and label every bit of opposition above a certain decibel level as organized and contrived." And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week that the opposition includes voices that are genuine.
"Look, I don't doubt that there are people that come to ask their members of Congress honest questions about the direction of the country," Gibbs said. "I also have no doubt that there are groups that have spread out people across the country to go to these things and to specifically generate videos that can be posted on Internet sites."
Obama, meanwhile, called for support Wednesday from the 13 million people on his e-mail list, asking them to commit to attending at least one health-care event this month.
"This is the moment our movement was built for," Obama wrote in the message, distributed by Organizing for America. He continued: "There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the Internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight."
The Democratic National Committee released an advertisement Wednesday alleging that "desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs" to "destroy President Obama."
Several conservative groups have taken the lead in organizing opposition, but Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele denied that his party is behind the town hall uproars. "We're not inciting anyone to disrupt anything," he said. “ … To sit back and say this is some Republican cabal is a bunch of baloney."
Steele blasted Democrats' accusations in an RNC fundraising appeal sent out Wednesday night. "They're using this fear-and-smear tactic to silence ANY American who disagrees with their risky scheme. . . . It's a page out of their standard playbook of name calling and outright lies to stifle all debate," he wrote.
'STRATEGY MEMO'
Liberals have seized upon a "strategy memo," issued by the Connecticut-based group Right Principles, which calls on conservatives to "pack the hall" and "yell out and challenge" lawmakers. The group's leader has ties to FreedomWorks, an advocacy organization headed by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.).
Gibbs said Tuesday that Conservatives for Patients' Rights and other groups "have bragged about organizing and manufacturing that anger." But CPR founder Rick Scott disputed those accusations and said a growing number of Americans are increasingly worried about Democratic plans for health-care reform. "I agree that everyone needs to be civil, and I'm not aware of anyone who says they shouldn't be," Scott said.
Another major group, Americans for Prosperity, has supplied thousands of printed placards for protests around the country. Its president, Tim Phillips, said the conservative group would "never condone disruptive behavior."
In interviews, some top congressional Democrats denounced the town hall opponents as marginal and shrill. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) called them "very rabid people," describing how, at a forum in Upstate New York, a man shouted at him, "You're lying to me."
"When you've been around as long as I have, it becomes pretty evident pretty quickly that this is an organized effort," Hoyer said. "Normal citizens just do not act that way."
"Labeling an entire group of people who have legitimate questions and concerns as extremists is one of the most insulting things we've heard in a very long time," responded Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Boehner.
AGGRESSIVE TACTICS
Several recent polls suggest that many Americans are uneasy about Democrats' health-care plan, and Boehner predicted last week, before leaving Washington, that Democrats are "likely to have a very, very hot summer" as they discuss health-care reform with their constituents. And indeed, some have.
Over the weekend in Philadelphia, Sen. Arlen Specter (D) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius faced critical questions and boos. On Maryland's Eastern Shore, an effigy of freshman Rep. Frank M. Kratovil Jr. (D) was hanged from a noose outside his district office.
In Connecticut, activists showed up at an event featuring Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D), who said last week that he has prostate cancer. One man shouted from the side of the road: "How come we don't just give Chris Dodd painkillers? Like a handful of them at a time. We can flush it down with Ted Kennedy's whiskey."
Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) reported a telephone death threat this week: A constituent called his Washington office and reportedly threatened him because he was not holding town halls.
And Saturday at a supermarket near Austin, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) was mobbed by about 200 people. Some held signs calling Doggett a "traitor to Texas" and a "devil to all people."
"This was very much feigned outrage that creates a phony grass-roots appearance of people coming out with their pitchforks," Doggett said. "But the folks who arose were Republican stalwarts."
"We all recognize that legitimate opposition is an important part of this dialogue, but we also recognize that tactics like threatening an elected official's life, hanging effigies and joking about someone's bout with cancer have no place in public life," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said Wednesday night.
Many Democrats, however, have convened town halls with no fireworks. In Virginia, Rep. Tom Perriello (D), a freshman in a vulnerable district, said his nightly gatherings have been largely peaceful. "I think Southern hospitality is winning the day," he said.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said lawmakers are determined to continue holding town halls. The 30 most vulnerable Democrats are scheduled to hold more than 1,000 events this month, he said.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she hopes conservative opponents understand that being "rude and obnoxious is not very persuasive" if their objective is to change lawmakers' minds.
Washington State Labor Council Report:
OUTSIDE THE ECHO CHAMBER, PART 2
OUR STATE’S WORKERS’ COMP ADVANTAGE; WASHINGTON HAS 5TH LOWEST EMPLOYER COSTS OF ANY STATE
By DAVID GROVES, Washington State Labor Council Staff
(July 30, 2009) One of the most persistent myths about Washington state's business climate is that our workers' compensation costs are higher than in most other states. The fact that many employers and public policymakers believe this to be true is another indication of the power and resonance of the negative internal rhetoric about our competitiveness.
As with overall business-climate rankings, independent objective analyses from outside the state tell a very different story. In fact, the gap between the truth and the negative rhetoric about our workers' compensation costs is shocking. Not only do we have comparatively low premiums, by the national measure most often cited, the workers' compensation costs to employers in Washington state are the fifth lowest of any state in the nation.
Despite these low costs, Washington's model state-run system is able to provide comparatively high benefits to injured workers. That's how this myth took hold that Washington is not competitive in this area. Business lobbying groups continually and deliberately decry the level of benefits -- not employers' actual costs -- in their quest to cut premiums even further.
The danger for Washington's working families is that lawmakers could lose sight of the goal of our workers' compensation system -- "sure and certain relief for workers, injured in their work, and their families and dependents" -- and shred this critical safety net in a misguided attempt to improve our business climate.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION is America's original tort reform. Until this system was established about 100 years ago, workers injured on-the-job could sue their employers for damages. But workers gave up that right to sue in exchange for this no-fault insurance program that pays medical costs and partially reimburses the lost wages of workers who suffer job-related injuries or illnesses.
 |
| A CASE IN POINT If you work at the troubled Vought Aircrafts plant in Charleston, S.C. (pictured above at the 2007 unveiling of a composite section of the 787), which was just purchased by Boeing in an effort to shore up its 787 supply line, you better hope you don't have a disabling injury at work. South Carolina is one of 16 states that has an average total disability benefit that is LESS than the federal poverty threshold, according to National Academy of Social Insurance data. But employers in South Carolina's privatized system pay MORE for workers' compensation coverage than employers in Washington pay, according to both the Oregon and Insurance Information Institute studies. So why would we compare Washington's "competitiveness" with South Carolina's based on injured workers' benefits rather than employer costs? Are we are determined to compete based on the degree of financial suffering that injured workers face? Do we want Washington to become a state where a permanently disabling work injury relegates a family to poverty? Of course not. (Photo courtesy of Washington State Labor Council.) |
So it's important to remember that workers’ compensation is not a poverty program, nor is it some kind of welfare. It is a mandatory insurance program, and it was sought by American employers as a way to protect them against potentially ruinous lawsuits over an injury or illness caused by their neglect.
Also known as "industrial insurance," workers' compensation coverage for more than 99% of the businesses in Washington state is provided through the nonprofit government-run State Fund. Fewer than 400 businesses, employing between one-quarter and one-third of the state's workforce, are large enough to operate their own industrial insurance programs and are called "self-insured employers."
These companies, including Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, Safeway and Microsoft, pay the same benefit levels set forth in state law, but they have more control over the claims administration process. Presumably, these employers' costs are lower than they would be in the State Fund system, or else they wouldn't self-insure.
HOW DO OUR EMPLOYER COSTS COMPARE? The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (OCDBS) conducts a biannual state-by-state study of workers' compensation premiums that is widely cited not only among public policy experts and state labor agencies across the nation, but also by private industrial insurance professionals. The latest edition, released in October 2008, found that Washington state had the 38th highest overall premiums in the nation.
But the news is even better for our state's employers. Washington is the ONLY state in the nation where workers pay a portion of the workers' compensation premiums, currently estimated by the Washington State Department Labor and Industries to be 25% of the costs. Factoring that in -- which Oregon's study does not -- Washington ranks 5th lowest in the nation in terms of costs for employers.
Business lobbying groups within Washington -- where No Good Business-Climate News Goes Unchallenged!™ -- say the Oregon study is not reliable because Washington has a unique system of calculating premiums based on hours worked rather than payroll dollars.
ODCBS Research Coordinator and study co-author Mike Manley stands by the rankings. Although he acknowledges that Washington is a unique state that is more difficult to measure, he says there is no evidence that the hours-to-payroll-based premium conversions artificially help or hurt Washington's performance in the rankings. Those conversions are provided by actuaries at the Department of Labor and Industries and Manley says there has never been any indication this data underreports our premiums in comparison with other states.
Plus, other studies confirm Washington's status as one of the least expensive in the nation. The Insurance Information Institute, "recognized by the media, governments, regulatory organizations, universities and the public as a primary source of information and analysis concerning insurance," reported in 2008 … that Washington has the third lowest premiums per worker of any state. The most recent comprehensive performance audit of our workers' compensation system, conducted in 1998, found that Washington was in the lowest 25% of states in terms of costs.
HOW DO OUR BENEFITS COMPARE? Washington has comparatively high workers' compensation benefits. The National Academy of Social Insurance's most recent analysis of 2006 data found that Washington paid $1.63 in benefits for every $100 in covered wages, which ranked our state third highest.
Therefore, Washington is considered a low-cost, high-benefit state.
Naturally, business lobbying groups and research organizations inside the state decry the high benefits and deliberately avoid mention of the comparatively low premiums. In the context of their continual criticism of our state business climate, they know that their audience -- whether it's fellow business executives, legislators or the media -- will assume that higher benefits mean higher costs. It doesn't.
Washington's state-run workers' compensation system -- one of only five such systems remaining in the U.S. -- is viewed as a national model for its efficiency. It can afford high benefits while charging low premiums because there are no profit margins, commissions or brokerage fees, as there are in privatized systems. It has significantly lower claims administration costs and no marketing or advertising costs.
But when you're in the business of lowering business costs, low is never low enough, especially when even more could be saved by cutting benefits for injured workers.
That's why organized labor and other advocates for injured workers argue that all proposed benefit cuts must be measured against our values as a state and not a manufactured panic about our business climate.
THE GOAL OF OUR WORKERS' COMPENSATION system, as set forth in Washington state law (RCW 51.04.010): "The welfare of the state depends upon its industries, and even more upon the welfare of its wage worker. ... Sure and certain relief for workers, injured in their work, and their families and dependents is hereby provided."
Organized labor believes all changes to our system should be measured against that goal. Is the motive for a proposed change to ensure "sure and certain relief" for injured workers? Or is it the product of a perceived -- but demonstrably untrue -- competitive disadvantage with other states?
Consideration should be made to ensure our system's costs stay competitive with other states. But it is absurd to make our goal to cut benefits so they are more in line with other states. Washington must not engage in a race to the bottom where injured workers and their families are thrown into poverty with no recourse. To engage in this benefit-cutting race, especially when employers in our state already have among the lowest workers' compensation costs in the country, is immoral and unacceptable.
[The next article in this series will focus on Washington's unemployment insurance system and how it compares to other states.]
NOTE: LOCAL 174 IS A WSLC AFFILIATE
The Teamsters Union represents everyone from A to Z — from airline pilots to zookeepers. It is a Change to Win Coalition Union no longer affiliated with the national AFL-CIO; however, the following Teamsters Union Locals have signed Solidarity Charters to retain their affiliation with the Washington State Labor Council: Local 174, Tukwila; Local 117, Tukwila; Local 231, Bellingham-Mt. Vernon; Local 252, Centralia-Chehalis-Olympia; and Local 767M, the Graphic Communications Conference, Kent.
Washington State Labor Council Report:
OUTSIDE THE ECHO CHAMBER, PART 1
WASHINGTON A BUSINESS-FRIENDLY STATE; NATIONAL RANKINGS CONTRADICT NEGATIVE INTERNAL RHETORIC
 Boeing’s suggestion that it may add a second assembly line for its 787 Dreamliner but not necessarily in Washington state has led to much speculation among public officials and opinion-makers about whether our state can compete well enough economically to keep Boeing from leaving. |
(July 23, 2009) If Al Franken was still on Saturday Night Live portraying life coach and self-confidence guru Stuart Smalley — instead of confirming U.S. Supreme Court justices and stuff — some of Washington's elected leaders could sit in front of his mirror and repeat, "We're good enough, we're smart enough and doggone it, business people like us!"
When it comes to whether Washington state can continue to maintain and attract good-paying jobs, some of Washington's elected leaders seem to have self-image problems that simply aren't based in reality.
The recommended therapy is simple. Stop believing the politically motivated, demonstrably untrue rhetoric within the state that suggests this is a bad place to do business. Start looking at what national business publications and public policy organizations — which don't have an agenda or vested interest in the outcome — are saying about us. And finally, work together to build on our considerable business-climate advantages to make Washington an even more attractive place for businesses and industries.
This is the first of a series of articles, "Outside the Echo Chamber" from the Washington State Labor Council, which aims to regain some perspective about our state's business climate and examine the successes we can build upon as business, labor and government leaders work together to maintain and increase the number of good-paying jobs in this state, particularly in the aerospace industry.
THE BOEING COMPANY'S SUGGESTION that it may add a second assembly line for its 787 Dreamliner — though not necessarily in Washington state — has set off a frenzy of hand-wringing speculation among public officials and opinion-makers about whether our state is competitive enough to keep Boeing from leaving. The company's recent purchase of a troubled 787 supplier in South Carolina, and the land adjoining that plant, has turned that frenzy into outright panic in some circles.
In this context, it's easy to understand why the state's business lobbying organizations — and the various corporate-funded think tanks and public policy organizations within Washington — have seized this fear as an opportunity to pursue their agenda. All continually assail our state's business climate as being "unfriendly" and do so with a clear agenda: cutting business taxes and deregulating industries. That's what they do. The day business lobbying groups decide taxes are low enough and regulations are fair enough is the day they go out of business.
Does that mean their gripes should be ignored? Of course not. Their concerns are sometimes legitimate and deserve to be addressed.
But it does mean that when it comes to sweeping claims that Washington has a poor business climate, isn't competitive with other states, or other such hyperbole, our state's elected officials should get out their grains of salt. Given the potential public policy implications of such sentiments, these declarations call for independent analysis and scrutiny.
IS IT TRUE? Is Washington state a bad place to do business?
As it happens, the answer you get from outside the state is very different from what we're hearing on the inside. This year's oft-cited study by Deloitte Consulting comparing Washington with states competing for aerospace industry jobs can't be considered independent, given that Boeing is one of Deloitte's major clients. Again, that doesn't mean Deloitte's study should be dismissed outright, but it is by no means the final word in whether our state can compete for Boeing or other aerospace jobs. (Deloitte's study will be examined more closely in a separate article in this series.)
National publications, universities and public policy organizations that analyze state policies affecting business consistently rank Washington among the very best states for business. They say we have comparatively low business taxes, a lighter regulatory burden, a highly skilled and highly trained workforce, excellent higher education, and for those reasons and many others, our state economy outperforms those of other states.
Here is a sampling of those national rankings, including how Washington compares with South Carolina, North Carolina, Kansas and Texas, the states identified in the Deloitte study as our chief competitors for Boeing and aerospace industry jobs. (The titles link to those publications' and organizations' analyses.)
Forbes Magazine's "Best States for Business"
Washington ranked near the top in many categories, including access to skilled labor, regulatory environment, and growth prospects. We have risen from 12th to 3rd in the past three years. Forbes also recently ranked Washington No. 1 in retaining our college graduates in jobs in the state as opposed to the “brain drain” many other states are experiencing where graduates move elsewhere.
The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council’s 2009 Business Tax Index
This Virginia-based group advocates for lower business taxes across the nation and ranks states "according to the costs of their tax systems for entrepreneurship and small business." Among the taxes included in the assessment are income, property, inheritance, unemployment, and various consumption-based taxes, including state gas taxes. (The state with the lowest taxes ranks 1st.)
The Tax Foundation's 2009 State Business Tax Climate Index
The conservative Tax Foundation intends this index to be a "tool for lawmakers" in assessing how their business tax climates compare with other states and points out, "States with the best tax systems will be the most competitive in attracting new businesses and most effective at generating economic and employment growth." (The state with the lowest taxes ranks 1st.)
U.S. News and World Report's "7 Best States to Start a Business"
This ranks which states where the best for entrepreneurship and starting a business. (Only the top seven states are listed.) In ranking Washington No. 1, U.S. News and World Reports cites our tech-intensive economy, low taxes, and the highly productive manufacturing workforce and high wages. (That's right, folks, high wages aren't just a higher cost of doing business, they get spent and circulated in the state economy -- and that's good for the state's businesses.) The report also notes that Washington state leads the nation in value added per production hour -- the difference in value between inputs in the production process and the value of units as finally sold.
The Kauffman Foundation's 2008 State New Economy Index
As it "works to harness the power of entrepreneurship," this nonpartisan public policy group poses the question, "To what degree does the structure of state economies match the ideal structure of the New Economy?" It measures "knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, transformation to a digital economy, and technological innovation capacity."
The 2008 State Competitiveness Report of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
This measures a wide range of variables, from fiscal policy to business development, to compare states' ability "to attract and retain business and to provide a high standard of living for its residents over the long run."
The Corporation for Enterprise Development's Development Report Card for the States
CFED is a nonpartisan, best-practices think tank, whose sponsors include Bank of America and Wal-Mart. It assigns letter grades using "67 measures to provide a relative, state-by-state assessment of economic development." It's Performance Measure "captures the 'return' on public and private investment: employment, income, the distribution of each within the population, stewardship of finite natural resources, and social conditions.
In the same report, CFED assigns a grade for Development Capacity, which measures "conditions and inputs that firms need to profit" in the future, including "an education system that provides students with skills for 21st century jobs, physical infrastructure, and financial, natural, and technological resources."
And finally, CFED’s new Asset and Opportunity Scorecard assesses states' performance in terms of "financial security, business development, homeownership, health care, education, and tax policy and accountability."
U.S. Department of Labor's Union Density Rankings
Here at the Washington State Labor Council, this is one of our favorite rankings. In the context of the above-listed rankings, it dispels the myth that having a strong, vibrant labor movement is bad for business. Washington is among the most heavily unionized states; about one in five workers are union members.
YES, THERE ARE A FEW business climate rankings out there that don't rate Washington so highly. For example, Site Selection magazine's annual survey of corporate site seekers didn't place Washington among its Top 25 states for 2009. And of course, this magazine's rankings are often cited by business lobbying groups within Washington state. Meanwhile, with every new positive assessment of our business climate, state business groups go into "damage-control" mode by picking apart each study's methodology and explaining why these national groups just don't understand the unique burdens state and local governments place on businesses in our state.
The point is not that state policymakers should be Pollyannas and ignore opportunities to improve our business climate just because Washington consistently scores highly in these rankings. The point is that the state's internal echo chamber of criticism must not be allowed to create an atmosphere of panic in this discussion. Clearly, Washington has a great deal to offer Boeing and other employers, and even more can be done to build on those advantages and successes.
The Washington State Labor Council is an active participant in the Washington Aerospace Partnership, and its affiliated unions at Boeing are part of Gov. Chris Gregoire's Washington Council on Aerospace. The goal of both groups is for business, labor and government leaders to work together to find ways to keep Boeing and other aerospace jobs here in Washington state.
The WSLC is convinced that Washington's advantages in this competition are considerable, and that the state can build on those advantages and make Washington an even more attractive location for the industry. Politically motivated, demonstrably untrue rhetoric about Washington being unfriendly to business undermines those efforts and distracts from the real action that we should be taking to build on our success.
[The next article in this series will focus on Washington's workers' compensation system and how its costs to employers compare to other states.]
NOTE: LOCAL 174 IS A WSLC AFFILIATE
The Teamsters Union represents everyone from A to Z — from airline pilots to zookeepers. It is a Change to Win Coalition Union no longer affiliated with the national AFL-CIO; however, the following Teamsters Union Locals have signed Solidarity Charters to retain their affiliation with the Washington State Labor Council: Local 174, Tukwila; Local 117, Tukwila; Local 231, Bellingham-Mt. Vernon; Local 252, Centralia-Chehalis-Olympia; and Local 767M, the Graphic Communications Conference, Kent.
IBT News Link:
FEDEX AND UPS SPAR OVER UNION RIGHTS
Marketplace - Online
(July 17, 2009) UPS and FedEx are in a battle over unions. UPS lobbied for FedEx teamsters to have the right to organize, a move FedEx is resisting. Dan Grech reports.
TEXT OF STORY:
Dan Grech started the Marketplace Americas Desk in September 2004. He covers Latin American business and the Hispanic economy in the U.S. from WLRN Studios in Miami. Dan got his start in print journalism. Before joining Marketplace he covered Argentina for The Miami Herald. He's also written for The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe. He's a Fulbright scholar and graduate of Princeton University. Kai Ryssdal: Wall Street analysts usually look to FedEx and UPS as a sign of economic things to come. If they're moving more packages that's seen as a promising sign. Now, though, labor specialists are paying attention to a disagreement between this country's two biggest delivery services. And this question: Is FedEx an airline or a trucker? Marketplace's Dan Grech has more.
Dan Grech: Congress is considering a change to labor law that would make it easier for FedEx Express drivers to unionize. FedEx currently is treated as an airline company, which is governed by the Railway Labor Act. Its industry rivals are treated as trucking companies governed by the National Labor Relations Act.
The new legislation would treat FedEx Express like a trucker. Ken Hall is a vice president at the Teamsters trucking union, which stands to gain new members from the change.Ken Hall: We think it provides for a level playing field. Rules on unionization are tougher in the airline industry, since local strikes can paralyze the national transportation system. Hall says that means FedEx drivers have historically had a harder time collective bargaining, as compared to UPS drivers.
Hall: UPS employees' hourly wage rates are significantly higher, plus their health-insurance benefits are better and cost them less.
Dan Grech: FedEx has said its wages and benefits are competitive with those of UPS. And a FedEx spokesman said that 85 percent of FedEx Express shipments are delivered by air, while 85 percent of UPS packages are by truck. FedEx says the legislation would tip the scales in favor of its arch rival.
Earlier this month, FedEx started a Web site called Brown Bailout. The site includes a video parody that features a UPS employee searching Capitol Hill for the bailout office.
The dispute has created strange bedfellows. Siding with the Teamsters in backing the proposed legislation is a collection of conservative groups including the Frontiers of Freedom. George Landrith is the nonprofit group's president. He says the legislation appeals to some conservatives because it will encourage fair competition in the transportation industry.
George Landrith: So now the question is will the law correct the accident of history and treat them the same. Or will it decide to treat one unfavorably and one favorably?
Dan Grech: Landrith says he can think of few occasions over the past two decades that he's agreed with the Teamsters on anything. I'm Dan Grech for Marketplace.
IBT News Link:
UPS AND FEDEX BATTLE OVER EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION
Business First
(July 17, 2009) When they aren't busy delivering packages these days, United Parcel Service Inc. employees might be busy writing letters to their U.S. senators on behalf of their employer.
 |
 |
| The IBT is just sitting back and watching the battle between UPS and FedEx in Congress right now. That battle is becoming quite heated in the U.S. Senate these days. How the Senators will fall when it comes to voting on ultimate important legislation related to FedEx will go far to solve the UPS-FedEx fight. Two of the Senators involved in the voting are the 92-year old, usually absent, gravely ill Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and the 67-year old, usually present, but sick-looking Republican Minority Leader from Kentucky Mitch McConnell. | |
Members of the Senate currently are considering legislation that would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and possibly add language that would change the definition of employees covered under the Railway Labor Act.
At issue is whether some employees of Memphis, Tenn.-based FedEx Corp., UPS's chief rival, should be classified under the same labor act as UPS employees.
The letters urge senators to support Senate Bill 1451, which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration.
Malcolm Berkley, a Washington, D.C.-based public relations manager for UPS, said UPS is compensating its employees for the time they spend writing the letters, which follow a template supplied to them by the company.
The bill follows the U.S. House of Representatives' May 21 passage of H.R. 915, also known as the FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2009.
At the heart of the dispute is a provision in the House bill, Section 806, which amends the definition of airline employees.
Although the Senate bill does not contain the amendment, observers say that when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, the issue likely will come up for discussion in the Senate.
Robert Steurer, the Washington, D.C.-based press secretary for U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, said in an e-mail that McConnell has heard from both UPS and FedEx employees in Kentucky about the issue.
“Senator McConnell appreciates hearing from his constituents on legislative issues, and he takes all their comments under consideration when deciding what impact the legislation will have on his state,” Steurer said in the e-mail.
Steurer declined to say whether McConnell supports the legislation.
Mike Reynard, press secretary for U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, said he was uncertain whether Bunning had received many letters from UPS and FedEx employees regarding the legislation.
Because the revision to the RLA hasn't been included in the FAA Reauthorization Bill currently under consideration in the Senate, Bunning hasn't spent much time studying the issue, Reynard said.
“It's something we'll have to look at when it comes up,” Reynard said. He added that Bunning welcomes correspondence from constituents about the legislation.
UPS SAYS FAIRNESS IS ISSUE
Officials with Atlanta-based UPS contend that workers carrying out identical tasks should be covered under the same labor act, regardless of who employs them.
When it was formed in 1971, FedEx, then Federal Express, was classified as an airline, and, like other airlines, was covered under the Railway Labor Act.
As the company has grown and developed its ground network, its 140,000 FedEx Express employees, including delivery drivers, package sorters and truck mechanics, have been classified as airline employees.
FedEx since has established other divisions, FedEx Ground, FedEx Freight, and FedEx Services, which are not covered under the RLA.
The act was created in 1926 to guide labor negotiations and limit strikes in the railway industry that would hurt national commerce. Airlines were added to the act in 1936.
How the FedEx Express employees are classified is of importance to company officials. The RLA makes it difficult for employees to unionize because a companywide vote must be taken in order for a union to be ratified.
Of UPS's employees, only those in its UPS Airlines division are covered under the RLA.
The majority of UPS's 345,000 U.S. employees, such as package-delivery truck drivers, are covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
It generally is viewed as more favorable for the establishment of labor unions because workers can vote to unionize on a location-by-location basis.
UPS's Berkley said UPS employees view this as a “competitive issue.”
“FedEx Express is the only company in the express delivery industry with its drivers, loaders and sorters governed by the RLA, a law designed for airlines and railroads,” UPS said in a corporate fact sheet. “FedEx uses its special exception status as a selling point against competitors, suggesting its coverage under the RLA makes it more reliable.”
The amended RLA “levels the playing field in the industry,” Berkley said.
FEDEX SAYS UPS SEEKS ‘BAILOUT'
FedEx officials say they resent efforts being made by UPS to have FedEx's employees reclassified.
They contend that UPS is using its political lobbying muscle to limit competition.
Maury Lane, Memphis-based director of communications for FedEx, said the amendment, as proposed in the House bill, amounts to a “bailout,” because it makes FedEx susceptible to unionization, which could hurt FedEx's competitiveness. Currently, FedEx pilots are the company's only union members.
In June, FedEx launched a Web site, www.brownbailout.com, to call attention to UPS's efforts.
“Americans are tired of bailouts,” Lane said, adding that UPS had net profit of about $6 billion in 2008 and has more than 440,000 employees. “UPS certainly doesn't need to go to Congress and get a leg up.”
UPS counters FedEx's claims, contending that it is not seeking a Congressional “bailout.” Instead, it wants all employees doing the same jobs for each company to be classified under the same labor act.
UPS also contends that despite the fact that FedEx was established as an airline, FedEx's express service drivers should be classified the same as UPS's drivers because “the work that's performed, not your history as a company,” should dictate how an employee is classified, according to the fact sheet.
Lane said that is precisely why FedEx should be classified as an airline.
“Last night, we delivered 3.5 million packages,” he said on Tuesday. “We used 600 planes with 2,600 flights to 220 countries. Eighty-five percent of our packages were delivered by plane.”
By comparison, UPS has an average daily delivery volume of 15.5 million packages and documents, including 2.1 million delivered by air in the United States.
Louisville-based UPS Airlines, established here in 1988, operates 600 aircraft that make 1,900 flights to 835 airports in 200 countries and territories around the world. The airlines division has 20,513 employees.
TEAMSTERS SEE OPPORTUNITY IN DEBATE
Leigh Strope, assistant director of communications for the Washington, D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said union officials are encouraging its 250,000 members within UPS to write letters to their senators, urging the reclassification of workers under the RLA.
A reclassification, Strope said, could allow the Teamsters to organize FedEx workers it long has sought to add as members.
“We get a lot of calls from FedEx workers interested in forming unions,” Strope said. “We are willing to help all workers.”
BILL PASSED HOUSE BY WIDE MARGIN
House Bill 915, the FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2009, passed the U.S. House of Representatives May 21 by a vote of 277-136. It includes an amendment that redefines who can be classified as an airline employee under the Railway Labor Act.
Certain FedEx Express employees, such as delivery drivers, package sorters and truck mechanics, now covered under the RLA, would be covered under the National Labor Relations Act.
That would open FedEx, which traditionally has resisted labor unions, to organization by labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
IBT News Link:
CONGRESS TARGETS WEALTHIEST EARNERS FOR HEALTH REFORM FUNDS
 |
 |
| Debate is hot and heavy in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives over how to fund health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), left, said of the Senators, "We're going to have some type of a public option." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), right, said, representing the Democrats in her Chamber, "We will not be taxing … health-care benefits in any legislation that comes from the House.” | |
Washington Post
(July 10, 2009) House and Senate negotiators are looking to wealthy individuals to pay much of the $1 trillion price tag for their plan to reform health care, though they are struggling to agree on the most viable option for obtaining that new revenue.
Lawmakers said they have made significant strides on the legislation's policy details as they seek to drive down health-care costs and expand coverage to up to 50 million people. But Democrats also have pledged to meet President Obama's promise of making the package deficit-neutral, something that is almost certain to require hefty tax increases in the midst of an economic downturn. Most increases under consideration would go into effect next year.
Much of the revenue burden could fall on a privileged few. The House Ways and Means Committee is close to completing legislation expected to include a surtax of up to 3 percent on households with incomes that exceed $250,000, pushing the top rate over 40 percent, assuming President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts are allowed to expire next year as scheduled.
The Senate Finance Committee is weighing a "millionaires' tax," a surcharge on health benefits for top earners and a Medicare tax on capital-gains income. And still on the table is Obama's proposal to limit deductions for wealthy taxpayers.
The haggling over the details of the new revenue sources could delay action on the legislation, especially in the Senate, where negotiators aim to pass a bipartisan bill by the August recess but are now headed back to the drawing board to fill a $320 billion hole created this week when one key tax increase fell out of contention. Under pressure from colleagues in swing states, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has backed off from a tax on employer-provided health benefits that would have hit middle-income households. Baucus is now shopping a revised version that would apply only to upper-bracket taxpayers, but some Democratic leaders remain skeptical.
The House and Senate also are considering new levies on sugary beverages and alcohol that would apply across the board. But the prospect of raising taxes on anyone in a gloomy economic climate has sent some Democrats scrambling to find additional cost savings on top of the $500 billion that negotiators have identified in Medicare and Medicaid, to cover about half of the total reform tab. "We shouldn't raise any revenues that aren't needed," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a Finance Committee member.
"We're going to need to do the majority by cost cutting, but we also have to figure out some revenues," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), another member of the panel. But he said the targets are numerous, and he predicted, "We will be able to pay for this in a bipartisan way."
And 40 fiscally conservative Democrats have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing "strong reservations about the process and direction" of the House bill, particularly its failure to rein in health-care costs over the long term. The letter said the House bill needs significant work and urged Pelosi to slow its pace through the chamber.
In the Senate, about half of the revenue options under review would specifically target the wealthy, senior aides said. One option would apply a 1.45 percent payroll tax on the capital gains of high-income investors. Preliminary estimates show that the measure would raise $100 billion over 10 years. Another proposal floated by committee members would slap a 5 percent "millionaires' tax" on individuals with very high incomes, yielding about $350 billion over 10 years. Obama's proposal to limit deductions would raise $90 billion to $250 billion, depending on how widely it would be applied.
Baucus is also developing variations of the benefits tax, including a version that would hit only highly paid employees with the richest benefit packages. Key Republicans, including Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, have demanded that all revenue increases be related to health care, and they say the benefits tax must meet that requirement while also closing a major tax loophole. But Obama campaigned against the idea, and Democrats remain skeptical that certain groups, such as firefighters and police officers, could be exempted, because they often receive benefits plans that are much more generous than their salaries.
"If it includes middle-class people, which I think it may well, I think there will be a lot of concern about that," Schumer said.
Pelosi flatly ruled out the idea. "We will not be taxing … health-care benefits in any legislation that comes from the House," she told reporters yesterday.
Tax issues aside, negotiators said they are close to resolving most major policy questions, including whether to create a government insurance plan to compete in the private marketplace, to ensure greater choice and drive down costs. The House legislation calls for a public plan, as does the Senate health committee bill.
But the more conservative Senate Finance Committee appears to be settling on a membership-based, cooperative model. Some senior Democrats say the finance and health committee bills could be blended to create a national co-op with a fallback option that triggers the formation of a public plan if private insurers do not offer adequate coverage alternatives.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he discussed the co-op idea at length with four Finance Committee Republicans during a Wednesday meeting aimed at building consensus for the emerging bill. "We're going to have some type of a public option -- you can call it a co-op, call it whatever you want -- but we're trying to work something out, and we have not drawn any lines in the sand in that regard," he said.
Pelosi said that she expected conflict between the two chambers on the public plan but that it would not prevent reform from becoming law. "The House of Representatives will set the pace for how we go forward and hope that the Senate priorities are ones that we can come to agreement in conference," she said. "And I'm confident that we can."
IBT Invitation:
THE MIGHTY ARMY OF TEAMSTER ORGANIZERS WANTS YOU
VOLUNTEER TO HELP REBUILD AMERICA’S MIDDLE CLASS
 |
(July 1, 2009) As Teamsters, you already know the importance of a union contract, a grievance procedure, seniority and a number of other things that most American workers must do without.
Now you can help nonunion workers who want Teamster representation by joining the Mighty Army of Teamster member organizers who are fighting to rebuild the middle class and raise standards for working families.
“There is no better spokesperson for the Teamsters than a Teamster like you,” said Jim Hoffa, Teamsters General President.
Millions of Americans want to form a union at work but are thwarted by employer intimidation and archaic election rules.
The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier for workers to form a union while at the same time rebuilding the American middle class.
Once the Employee Free Choice Act passes, the Teamsters Union will be deluged with organizing requests, and that’s where you come in.
“To meet the many organizing challenges our union will face after passage of this commonsense legislation, the Teamsters Union is seeking to recruit and train 1,000 member organizers before the end of 2009,” Hoffa said. “We are engaged in national campaigns that will test the resources of the union. Without a mighty army of Teamster member organizers, we’re not going to get it done.”
“Every worker in this country has the right to organize. Right now, with the economy the way it is, having a job that is protected by a contract is priceless,” said Tom Keegel, General Secretary-Treasurer. “I encourage anyone who would like to help grow and improve the lot of America’s middle class to support this effort.”
Members who volunteer will go through a daylong “Organizers Boot Camp” covering the basics of what they’ll be asked to do as member organizers and they will participate in an ongoing campaign.
For more information, or to enlist in the Mighty Army of Teamster Organizers, contact your local union.
