Teamsters Local Union #174 -- Views

Teamsters News Link:
GOOD RIDDANCE TO 2009 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Washington State Labor Council

The Capitol Building in Olympia, Washington, where Labor Unions suffered through a not-very-productive 2009 Legislative Session from the standpoint of working families.

(April 28, 2009) Local 174 Webmanager’s Note: Since the 2009 Session of the Washington State Labor Council began, the Washington State Labor Council has been sending out periodic Legislative Updates of the action, or inaction, in the State Capital. The Session has ended. Following is the final 2009 WSLC Update, for your consideration. The Teamsters Union by and large agrees with most of what the WSLC has to say. The Session from Labor’s standpoint was in general quite flawed.

FITTING END TO ANTI-WORKER SESSION
IN THE FINAL HOURS, LEGISLATURE REMOVES BENEFITS FROM UNEMPLOYMENT BILL, CUTS HEALTH FUNDING FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, PASSES NEW TAX BREAKS

OLYMPIA -- If there was any doubt remaining about whether corporate interests superseded those of working families in the 2009 Legislature, it evaporated in the session's final weekend.

The State Senate, where Democrats have a 31-18 majority, refused to concur with the House-approved version of SSB 5963, the unemployment insurance bill. The Senate voted to strip the bill of its restoration to a 4.0 benefit multiplier, an $8 to $19 weekly benefit increase that would have taken effect next year when the temporary benefit increase expires. The Senate also voted to CUT benefits by taking away the discretion of the Employment Security commissioner to award benefits in unique circumstances of good-cause quits.
What remained was a permanent business tax cut lowering 2010-2015 rates about $377 million, and when the economy recovers, about $1.6 billion every five years after that.

The Senate did approve a small technical change that will allow unemployed workers who've exhausted their yearly benefits in Washington to continue to receive federal benefits. This no-brainer doesn't cost the state a penny and helps an estimated 22,000 workers.
Even so, what it took to pass even this amendment was absurd. And the Senate added insulting unaccountability to working-family injury by taking extraordinary steps to try to keep you from finding out how they voted on all this.

Here's how this black comedy played out.

When it became clear the Senate would strip the amendments from SSB 5963, Sen. Karen Keiser (D-Kent) did the right thing to create some accountability by demanding a roll-call vote on each of the three House amendments. Nine votes are all that are needed. But unfortunately, five of the nine Senators who said they would sustain the motion for a roll-call vote did not.

Shock at this betrayal led to chaos on the floor as Democratic Lt. Governor Brad Owen, who presides over the Senate, went forward with a stand-up non-recorded vote on the first amendment before Senators even understood what they were voting on. Sen. Chris Marr (D-Spokane) had posed the original motion as non-concurrence rather than a positive motion and ... well, we're getting a little "inside baseball" here. In the end, many Senators not only didn't know what amendment they were voting on, but they were also confused whether to vote "yes" or "no."

By the time Owen finally clued Senators in on what they were voting upon -- this is what democracy looks like! -- the Senate had rejected all three House amendments, including the 100% federally funded technical fix. Labor lobbyists went to Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee) and Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) to explain that they had just accidentally refused free money that could be spent by struggling families in local businesses, and this amendment was subsequently brought up for reconsideration and passed.

SSB 5963 then went back to the House, where State Representatives ultimately receded from their amendments on the 4.0 multiplier and commissioner discretion. In this case, a group of progressive legislators demanded roll-call votes on receding, but given House Speaker Frank Chopp's reportedly tearful plea to caucus members to back off on the amendments, the votes to recede weren't even close.

The Washington State Labor Council very much appreciates the courage it took for 53 State Representatives to stand up to opposition from Boeing, other corporate interests and their own House Democratic leadership to pass the labor-backed amendments in the first place.

But in the end, what prevailed was a "deal" agreed to by Democratic leaders -- and without labor's knowledge -- to do nothing for unemployed workers in 2009 except pass the temporary economic-stimulus benefit increase that expires Dec. 31. In exchange, business got hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent tax cuts plus they took away commissioner discretion. Nice deal.

CHOPP TO GOP: I'LL GIVE YOU U.I., IF YOU'LL SHUT UP
An interesting side note to Speaker Chopp's role in convincing his colleagues to recede on unemployment benefits, was that he reportedly used SSB 5963 as a bargaining chip to get Republicans to shut up as time was running out. In the end, it backfired when the Republicans reneged -- by not shutting up -- and time expired before everything got passed.

As you've probably heard, the House was unable to pass all of the bills Democratic leaders and Gov. Chris Gregoire had agreed were needed to implement their all-cuts budget. That means there will likely be a special overtime session, perhaps as short as one day and perhaps as soon as next week.

Gregoire hopes to limit the scope of the session to three or four bills that are needed for the budget, including a school levy equalization bill. Opposed by Republicans and some Democrats, this bill would cut about $60 million in state "levy equalization dollars" intended to help poor districts that can't raise much tax money. To make up for it, the bill increases the limit on what the districts can raise for themselves.
With only a few hours left in the session, this bill was being talked to death by Republicans, and the Democrats still had a lot of bills requiring action. So Speaker Chopp called a timeout and cut a deal with Republicans. He would move the unemployment insurance bill -- sans benefit amendments -- if they would stop delaying and let him move some bills.

So the House receded on U.I., and for a while anyway, the Republicans let a couple bills move.

One of those late bills -- approved 85-11 amid unconscionable cuts to the state's Basic Health Plan, state employee and teacher layoffs, and the slashing of various public services -- was SB 6170, an assortment of tax cuts for Hanford contractors, log haulers, solar energy producers, and others. They passed this bill, complete with an "emergency clause," before they even got the fiscal note. That's right. They aren't sure what all the tax breaks will cost.

And let's not forget that on the session's final day, the Senate resurrected a tax break for newspapers that was previously reported to have died. It will cost $1.2 million in the first year and about $1.3 million thereafter.

Anyway, getting back to Chopp's "I'll-give-you-U.I.-if-you'll-just-shut-up" deal, the punch line is that after Republicans got what they wanted on U.I. and a few bills like these tax breaks passed, they decided not to shut up after all. They again began speechifying and floor-amending in the last hour and Chopp ran out of time before he could revisit the GOP-opposed school levy equalization bill.

The moral of this story? Well, morals have nothing to do with it.

BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE ANOTHER $3 PER MONTH?
Where, you ask, were Democrats coming up with the money to pass final-hour special-interest tax breaks? Well, they found some of it in state employees' pockets.

"Funding for state employee health insurance was reduced yet again in the budget proposal released Friday by majority Democrats," wrote Adam Wilson of The Olympian. "The change means workers will be more exposed to cost increases in health care. The bill specifies some ways to make up the difference, including higher co-payments paid by workers."

The final budget set aside $745 per employee, per month, for the next year to cover health insurance. That’s $3 less than the lowest figure Democrats previously had considered.

State employees already had their union contracts tossed, their wages frozen, payments into their pension deferred, and their out-of-pocket health costs increased -- and that's IF they were fortunate enough to keep their jobs. So, hey, what's another $3 a month, when special-interest taxes need a-cuttin'?

SENATE TO POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS' WIDOWS: STAY SINGLE
Here's another gem of an outcome from the final days. Last Friday, we thought we had reached agreement with Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) on concurring with the House on HB 1212, which would allow surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty to continue receiving survivor benefits after they get remarried. The agreement was to include a study to look at whether this policy should be extended to other groups of workers. We had received assurances from the Governor's office that the governor would be OK with this, as was L&I.

But by Saturday, Sen. Kohl-Welles had changed her mind. She stuck with her committee, which wanted to turn the bill itself into a study. Even the offer of a sunset and review of the policy would not budge her. This time, the losers are widows and widowers. But quite frankly, we all lose when agreements shift from moment to moment -- a tragedy replayed many times over this legislative session for working people.

PAID FAMILY LEAVE: SEE YOU IN 2012?
Paid family leave. Remember that? Historic legislation was approved back in 2007 -- when Democrats were Democrats -- to grant Washington workers up to five weeks of partial wage replacement of up to $250 per week upon the birth or adoption of a child. It was scheduled to begin in October of this year, but the legislature never figured out how to pay for it. That wasn't going to happen in the Year of the Axe, so legislators approved SB 6158 delaying implementation for three more years until October 2012.

OUR 2009 LEGISLATIVE REPORT & VOTING RECORD
It will be published in late May or early June. If you are on the mailing list to receive these Legislative Updates, you will receive that publication as well. Until then, we wish we could say it's been a pleasure.

Teamsters News Link:
HOW WILL LABOR POLICY CHANGES AFFECT TRANSPORTATION

National Journal

Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa explained how Labor Policy changes will affect transportation — and also members of the Teamsters Union.

(April 27, 2009) A Question on National Journal’s blog was asked: “With a pro-union president and Congress, what labor policy changes are we likely to see that will affect the transportation industries? Will those new policies be good for the sector and/or for transportation users?” -- Lisa Caruso, “NationalJournal.com”.

An Answer came soon. James P. Hoffa, Teamsters General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters responded, on April 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM. He wrote the following.

BEST LABOR POLICY A JOB
“The best labor policy is a job, and the president's stimulus package will create plenty of them.
The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is expected to result in millions more jobs. In the next 18 months, it will create 150,000 new transportation jobs. Many of those jobs will involve rebuilding our transportation infrastructure, including building high-speed rail, repairing roads and bridges, paving runways and buying new buses.

These will be good jobs at good wages — and that's what unions want.

Importantly, the economic stimulus package includes a $13 billion commitment to high-speed rail over the next five years. That is more money than has ever been spent in the history of high-speed rail in this country. It will spur the development of supertrains in the Northeast, the Midwest, the South and the West.

High-speed rail is a practical and convenient way to travel along corridors of 600 miles or less – from the Bay area to San Diego, for example, or from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Train riders along the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston know that it's a practical and convenient way to travel from one city center to another.”

Teamsters News Link:
AFL-CIO AND CHANGE TO WIN ANNOUNCE UNITED STANCE ON IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL

Daily Labor Report
(April 20, 2009) Following is a Teamsters News Link story from the April 15 issue of Daily Labor Report:

JOINT PLAN FOR COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION
The AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations — which have not always seen eye to eye on immigration issues — April 14 unveiled a joint plan to push for comprehensive immigration legislation that would include a path to citizenship for undocumented workers already in the United States and an independent commission to determine the future flow of immigrant workers.

Leaders of the labor federations told reporters the unions would be united in their approach and that “immigration reform must fully protect U.S. workers, reduce the exploitation of immigrant workers and reduce employers' incentive to hire undocumented workers rather than U.S. workers.”

The federations detailed their stance on several key issues, including guestworker programs, future flows, work authorization procedures, border enforcement, and a framework for unauthorized immigrations to obtain legal status.

The agreement between the two groups is “hugely significant to workers around the country” and is a “major step forward toward passing comprehensive immigration reform,” Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president with the Service Employees International Union, said.

The labor federations were inspired by a March 2007 article written for the Economic Policy Institute by Ray Marshall, former secretary of labor in the Carter administration, that outlined steps to overhaul the immigration system, an EPI economist said (60 DLR A-6, 3/29/07). On April 16, EPI plans to release a new report by Marshall that includes full details of the labor unions' stance on immigration policy.

FAIR, CHAMBER QUESTION PROPOSALS
Meanwhile, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce took issue with some of the labor groups proposals. The chamber questioned the use of a commission to determine future flows, while FAIR expressed opposition to granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants.

Immigrant rights groups, however, applauded the unified labor stance, saying that it improves the chances of enacting comprehensive immigration legislation this year.

President Obama has said he considers immigration a key legislative priority, but a spokesman said recently that the White House does not expect the process will be completed this year (67 DLR A-11, 4/10/09).

FRAMEWORK INCLUDES FIVE KEY POINTS
The federations outlined five major principles that they believe must be included in any comprehensive immigration bill. Those principles include:

The establishment of an independent commission to assess and manage the future flow of immigrant workers, based on labor market shortages;

Legalization of undocumented immigrants that are already in the United States;

A secure and effective method of worker authorization;

Improvement of current guestworker programs that does not include expansion of those programs;

And “rational” operational control of the border.

The federations said that a key component of any immigration overhaul would be determining the future flow of immigrant workers into the United States, which they said should be determined by an independent commission.

“One of the great failures of our current employment-based immigration system is that the level of legal work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise — without regard to real labor market needs — and is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions,” according to the federations.

COMMISSION WOULD DETERMINE LABOR MARKET VISA NEEDS
An independent commission could determine the labor market need for both temporary and permanent employment visas based on a methodology approved by Congress, the groups said.

Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel and director of the AFL-CIO's Immigrant Worker Program.

“The issue of future flows is not just about guestworkers,” said Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel and director of the AFL-CIO's Immigrant Worker Program. The commission would determine the future flow of permanent immigrant workers and also of workers who would fill a truly short-term need in the labor market, she said.

The federations agree that “immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population” because deporting 12 million people is not realistic.

Instead, the immigrants should be given a chance to “come out of the shadows” so that there is no longer a large pool of undocumented workers “whom employers will continue to exploit to drive down wages and other standards to the detriment of all workers,” the groups said.

Next, the federations called for improvement to current guestworker programs without expanding them. The United States should “not adopt a new ‘indentured' or ‘guest worker' initiative,” the groups said. “Our country has long recognized that it is not good policy for a democracy to admit large numbers of workers with limited civil and employment rights.”

AVENDAÑO: DIVISIONS FUELED ‘ANTI-IMMIGRANT HATRED'
“Unity is important on this issue” and the labor community has been divided in the past, which only fueled anti-immigrant hatred and helped businesses push for measures that are bad for workers, Avendaño said.

“We have a common focus of promoting worker rights” and “our guiding principle has been to make sure we don't have a two-tiered society of workers,” she said.

“In the past, the labor movement was about 85 percent on the same page,” Medina said. He said that the two federations have come together and hashed out their differences regarding the future flow of immigrants.

“The best way, we all agree, is to have future flows determined by a commission,” Medina said. “That takes employers out of the equation of deciding the need for workers,” and ensures fairness, he said.

Now that the federations have come together with a unified stance on immigration, they plan to take their proposal to members of Congress.

“We will talk to every member of Congress, regardless of their party affiliation, about why comprehensive immigration reform is important now and makes sense for the United States,” Medina said.

CHAMBER QUESTIONS COMMISSION IDEA
Randel Johnson, vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told BNA that the labor federations' idea to create a commission to determine future flows is likely unworkable and that there should be no move to abandon current guestworker programs.

“The commission idea has a long history,” and when it was debated in the past, problems arose such as the commission being susceptible to political pressure and difficulty in establishing a formula to evaluate labor market shortages, Johnson said.

Instead, the chamber favors the current system where an employer who has tested the labor market and can't find an available U.S. worker can use various guestworker programs, Johnson said.

“We shouldn't just abandon our current guestworker programs,” Johnson said. “Prior recruitment efforts are a good proxy to demonstrate workforce shortages,” and there are ample protections in the programs against fraud and abuse that should be enforced, he said.

FAIR OPPOSES AMNESTY PROVISION
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group advocating lower levels of immigration, “agrees that the current immigration situation in the United States is harmful to American workers,” Jack Martin, special project director at FAIR, told BNA April 14.

“Illegal immigrant workers are easily exploited by employers” impacting the wages and working conditions for American workers, he said.

“Granting amnesty to those workers is not the approach we favor,” Martin said. Instead, FAIR supports approaches to reduce the number of illegal workers in the United States so that employers have to offer better wages and conditions, he said.

“Programs like E-Verify have been useful at reducing the number of illegal workers,” especially in states like Arizona that mandate its use, Martin said.

UNION STANCE A ‘BREAKTHROUGH,' RIGHTS GROUPS SAY
“Organized labor — the legitimate voice of working class Americans — is for an immigration solution for America,” and “realizes, as do the faith, business and immigrant communities, that the sooner we get immigrants into the system, on the books, protected by labor laws and paying their full share of taxes, the better it is for all workers in the labor force and all employers who want to play by the rules,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said in a April 14 statement.

“We have worked with individual unions for years to reform immigration laws,” Noorani said. “When labor moves forward in a unified fashion, their power to move policies for the betterment of the American worker is a game changer.”

Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, an immigrant rights group, agreed. “This is a dramatic breakthrough that greatly improves the chances of enacting comprehensive immigration reform this year,” he said.

“Comprehensive immigration reform will lift wages by creating a level playing field,” Sharry said. “It will generate revenues by ensuring that all workers and employers pay their fair share of taxes,” and it will “restore the rule of law to our borders and our workplaces,” he said.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, applauded the federations' “stand to protect American workers, uphold labor laws for all, lift wages, and limit the number of loopholes available to unscrupulous employers.”

“More than 7 million workers reside in the shadows of a system that takes advantage of them because they are undocumented,” Salas said. “All workers in the United States deserve labor law protections, minimum wage, health and safety laws, and humane treatment that is based on the law not on immigration status.”

“Today's announcement from the country's most powerful labor federations serves as yet another signal that the momentum for immigration reform is building, and the muscle behind it is growing stronger,” Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said April 14.

“America needs a workable immigration system that balances the needs of both hard-working men and women and honest businesses,” Kelley said. “It is unacceptable to have millions working in our country in an underground economy,” she added.

Teamsters News Link:
TALKS ON LABOR UNIFICATION CONTINUE WITH CREATION OF COORDINATING COMMITTEE

Daily Labor Report
(April 8, 2009) Following a day and a half of talks in which labor leaders negotiated over how to create a single organization to unify labor unions, former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.) told BNA April 7 that “significant progress” was made on key issues and a committee framework has been established to continue working toward an agreement.

David Bonior wants to help get all of the Labor Movement under one umbrella.

The leaders, who met April 6-7 at the National Labor College outside Washington, D.C., said in a statement that the committee they have established will “consult among their affiliated unions and to act nationally on the critical issues facing working Americans.”

The National Labor Coordinating Committee comprises AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, Change to Win Chair Anna Burger, and NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, along with the presidents of six AFL-CIO affiliates and five Change to Win affiliates. The three groups represent more than 16 million workers in over 60 unions.

Bonior, who has been leading the unification effort for the last three months and will continue to chair the committee, told BNA April 7 that the newly formed committee will expand discussions beyond unification and will address a range of issues important to working Americans. Those issues include the reform of the nation's labor laws through the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1409, S. 560), the renewal of the economy, and the passage of health care reform, according to Bonior, who also heads the advocacy group American Rights at Work.

Finding success in creating one labor organization is crucial at this time, according to Bonior. “Recognizing the historic moment we face [with the change in government], the American labor movement must unify to restore the American dream for working families,” he said.

PARTIES REACHED ‘SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS'
Bonior said that the union leaders made “significant progress” during the talks over core issues related to melding the two federations and NEA. The issues, he said, relate to organizing, legislative and political goals, and governance. He said there are “some outstanding issues still being discussed,” particularly related to governance. Also, another area that will take some time to deal with is the “financials” of a unified movement. Bonior declined, however, to get into any specifics of the negotiations.

“We're getting there,” he said, adding that all 14 union presidents who began the process in January are still participating three months later.

In January, the parties had set a goal of reaching an agreement on a framework for what the labor entity would look like by mid-April.

With mid-April approaching, when asked for a time frame or goal for completion of the unification process, Bonior said the committee has pledged to “complete its consultations and other work on unification plans over the coming months.”

The formation of the committee “creates the opportunity to continue to discuss the issues needed to blend the three federations,” Bonior added.

It is likely that the participants want to have an agreement in place by the end of the summer. The AFL-CIO has scheduled its quadrennial convention for Sept. 14-17 in Pittsburgh, and Sweeney announced April 6 that he plans to retire at that time (64 DLR A-9, 4/7/09).

EFFORT TO MEND SCHISM THAT OCCURRED IN 2005
Four years ago internal discussions among the AFL-CIO and a number of unions within the AFL-CIO failed to resolve issues dealing with the structure, governance, financing, and programs of the federation, leading to the disaffiliation of several unions and the formation of the separate Change to Win federation. At the time of the split the CTW unions said the labor movement needed to put more emphasis on organizing rather than on politics. Officials on both sides also attributed the split to a dispute over who would control and lead the federation (142 DLR AA-1, 7/26/05).

While some presidents of unions affiliated with AFL-CIO and Change to Win had been meeting informally for some time to discuss how to mend the schism, in January, Bonior formally convened a group of presidents of 12 of the nation's largest labor unions and the heads of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to discuss reunifying the labor movement into one organization (5 DLR A-1, 1/9/09). Following that meeting, the participants issued a statement that they were trying to “create a unified labor movement that can speak and act nationally on the critical issues facing working Americans.”

NEA, an independent union, is the nation's largest with 3.2 million members. It was included in the discussions for a new labor entity because it has worked closely with unions from both federations, in particular around the election of President Obama and pushing for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

In March, the AFL-CIO Executive Council authorized Sweeney and members of the smaller executive committee to continue the discussions to attempt to unify the labor movement (41 DLR B-1, 3/5/09).

Other union presidents on the committee include Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers; Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America; Ed Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers International Union of North America; Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; Bruce Raynor, president of UNITE HERE; Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers; Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers; and Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.

Teamsters News Link:
U.S. TRUCK DRIVERS DON’T WANT TO DRIVE IN MEXICO

USA Today
(April 7, 2009) Note: Following are quotes in USA Today about the Mexican Truck situation.

Teamsters Local 385 President Mike Stapleton: “Teamsters are not some
third-party boogeymen.”

“FOR THE WORKING MAN” --- Mike Stapleton, President, Teamsters Local 385, Orlando, Florida:

“I read USA TODAY's editorial on the Mexican border trucking issue and admit, I am amazed. There was not even a feeble attempt to hide the anti-working person animus. Rarely have I read an editorial that seemed so against blue-collar workers.

“Teamsters are not some third-party boogeymen. I am a Teamster. I drove for more than 20 years. My supporters are not ‘enablers.’ I went to the polls and elected my congressmen as did everyone else. When I have an issue, I contact my congressmen as does everyone else. USA TODAY's mischaracterization of Teamsters paints a negative picture of what many voters do when they ask their elected officials for help.

“Many cops are Teamsters, and we lobby for law enforcement legislation. Does that make us criminals? Many truckers are Teamsters, and we lobby for highway safety issues. Does that make us bad drivers? Workers across America are Teamsters and we lobby on their behalf constantly because the working men and women are what made this country great.”

“U.S. TRUCK DRIVERS DON'T WANT TO DRIVE IN MEXICO” --- Pamela J. Chapman, Lexington, Georgia:

“I am an American truck driver and have been for seven years. I feel compelled to respond to the debate about prohibiting Mexican trucks from transporting goods in the USA… I am not a member of the Teamsters Union. I do feel, however, that the union's stance on the situation, ‘Keep Mexican trucks out,’ is more in line with mine.

“I have dealt with Mexican drivers because my company has a division in Mexico. We take product to the border towns, and the Mexican drivers pick it up, driving across the border in our trailers. Then they return the trailers with their product. It is true that it is hard to regulate those drivers in the same way we are regulated. I have seen many of them driving unsafely, speeding, taking illegal turns and not staying in their lanes.

“When it costs more, not less, to locate a business outside the country, our citizens will have the jobs that we have given to the Mexicans. USA TODAY's editorial board needs to talk to truck drivers who have experience with this issue and not rely solely on the statistics cited in its opinion.

“If you took a poll of truckers, you would find most of us don't want the Mexican trucks here. I think all freight in the U.S. should be driven by U.S. drivers and swapped at the borders. I have no desire to drive in either Canada or Mexico.”

“RISKS OF CROSSING BORDER” --- Belinda Blacketer, South Beach, Oregon:

“I am a "commodities redistribution engineer" (formerly known as a truck driver) and would never dream of taking any one of my 18 wheels across the southern border.

“There is a high security risk for a vehicle valued at $110,000 hauling a trailer worth $35,000 and filled with freight. Mexico is rife with desperados, not necessarily connected to the drug cartels, who would take the opportunity to loot my truck, trailer and freight.

“Also, the best highways in Mexico are in no way comparable even to our worst. I cannot afford the additional maintenance costs that would be required after crossing even 100 miles of highway in that country.

“Further, there are arrangements between Mexican carriers and domestic companies under which trailers are dropped at the border, taken across by the Mexican carriers, unloaded, reloaded then returned. This has worked for years.”

Teamsters News Link:
PICKETERS TELL BANK OF AMERICA: ‘WE WANT FREE CHOICE'

People's Weekly World

Richard Berg, above, president of Teamsters Local 743, said that the EFCA is the “ultimate in democracy.”

(April 7, 2009) Labor activists and Logan Square residents picketed the local branch of Bank of America, April 4, to draw attention to the bank's brazen campaign to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Chanting “Shame on Bank of America,” picketers circled in front of the branch and gathered signatures in support of the bill, including from many bank customers.

"Two days after they got a $25 billion bailout from the Federal government, Bank of America convened a conference call with AIG, McDonalds, Home Depot, and other big corporations to discuss how to defeat EFCA," Leah Raffanti, of Chicago Jobs with Justice, told picketers and pedestrians. "We are here to tell Bank of America to stop interfering with legislation that will help working families."

Bank of America already carries a lousy reputation in Chicago, especially after the role they played in the shut down of Republic Windows and Doors. As chief creditor they refused to extend a $5 million line of credit a couple of weeks after the bank got its bailout.
"I'm glad you're here," one bank customer told the picketers. "You're speaking the truth. Bank of America created the financial crisis with their greed. And now they want us to pay double for it." Lots of cars and trucks driving by honked in support.

Among the picketers was Richard Berg, president of Teamsters Local 743. "They say passing EFCA will be the end of civilization. They say it's undemocratic. But EFCA is the ultimate in democracy,” he said. "You can't stand by yourself against Bank of America. Only when working people stick together can we win."

Lance Cohn, a retired Chicago teacher said passage of EFCA was essential for economic recovery. "Unionized workers make 30 percent more than non-unionized workers,” he said.

"The last 30 years the corporations and rich have had it their way and accumulated staggering wealth while working people have taken in on the chin. EFCA will help re-balance things," he said. Cohn is part of the campaign to organize teachers at Chicago charter schools.

Also in the line was Charles Gilyard, president of USWA Local 2154. Gilyard said EFCA is one of the laws needed to strengthen organized labor's ability to not only win better pay and benefits but to protect its members from being fired for union activities.

"I have seen companies ruining the lives of workers. One of our union brothers was fired for being a union activist. He's been off a year as he fights his way through the courts. He may win his job back, but he's already lost his home and his wife. His life is ruined."

Gilyard also said a major cause of the violence claiming the lives of scores of African American and Latino young people in Chicago is the massive joblessness and bleak economic future. He said creating union wage jobs would be a big factor in ending the violence.

Protesters joined the picket line from the Logan Square Neighbors for Justice and Peace, Organizing for America, the South Austin Coalition Community Council, the Logan Square-Humboldt Park Communist Party club and Coalition of Labor Union Women, and vowed to stick together until the battle is won.

Teamsters News Link:
U.S. JOBLESS RATE SOARS

Reuters
(April 3, 2009) The U.S. unemployment rate soared to 8.5 percent in March, the highest since 1983, as employers slashed 663,000 jobs and cut workers' hours to the lowest on record, government data showed on Friday.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Keith Hall.

In a report underscoring the distress in the labor market, the Labor Department also revised its data for January to show job losses of 741,000 that month, the biggest decline since October 1949.

The drop in non-farm payrolls in February was unrevised at 651,000.

U.S. equity futures and government bond prices fell and the U.S. dollar rose against the yen after the data.

The report, coming in the wake of recent data that have surprised on the upside, did little to alter perceptions the economy's downward momentum was slowing as unemployment was a lagging indicator and tended to peak well after the recession ended, economists said.

"The report does not contradict the growing notion that the economy is finding a bottom. Employment will not turn on a dime and certainly there's no sign of strength, but at least it's not getting worse and worse and worse," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision Economics in New York.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast non-farm payrolls falling 650,000 in March. They had forecast the unemployment rate rising to 8.5 percent from 8.1 percent the prior month.

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 5.1 million jobs, with about two thirds of the losses occurring in the last five months, the department said.

Job losses in March were broad based, with only education and health services adding jobs.

The manufacturing sector shed 161,000 jobs in March, after eliminating 169,000 positions the prior month. Construction industries lost 126,000 jobs after bleeding 107,000 in February. The service-providing industry axed 358,000 positions after shedding 366,000 in February.

"In March the number of individuals experiencing long spells of joblessness rose by 265,000 to 3.2 million. Nearly one in four of the unemployed had been jobless for 27 weeks or more, the highest ratio since mid-1983," Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Keith Hall said in a statement. He reported the following factors.

Rising unemployment is cutting into household incomes, which have already been decimated by the collapse in asset prices, restricting their spending ability.
Illustrating the severity of the unemployment situation, a measure of unemployed people working part-time for economic reasons and those who have given up looking for work, raced to a record 15.6 percent from 14.8 percent in February.
With companies cutting back in response to depressed demand conditions, the length of the workweek fell to 33.2 hours in March, the lowest on record, compared to 33.3 hours the prior month. The factory workweek edged down to 39.3 hours from 39.5 in February.
Weekly overtime hours at factories was steady at 2.7 hours in March. Average hourly earnings rose marginally to $18.50 from $18.47 in February.

Teamsters News Link:
LABOR AGENCY IS FAILING WORKERS, REPORT SAYS

New York Times

United States Department of Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.

(March 25, 2009) The federal agency charged with enforcing minimum wage, overtime and many other labor laws is failing in that role, leaving millions of workers vulnerable, Congressional auditors have found.

In a report scheduled to be released Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office found that the agency, the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division, had mishandled 9 of the 10 cases brought by a team of undercover agents posing as aggrieved workers.

In one case, the division failed to investigate a complaint that under-age children in Modesto, Calif., were working during school hours at a meatpacking plant with dangerous machinery, the G.A.O., the nonpartisan auditing arm of Congress, found.

When an undercover agent posing as a dishwasher called four times to complain about not being paid overtime for 19 weeks, the division's office in Miami failed to return his calls for four months, and when it did, the report said, an official told him it would take 8 to 10 months to begin investigating his case.

“This investigation clearly shows that Labor has left thousands of actual victims of wage theft who sought federal government assistance with nowhere to turn,” the report said. “Unfortunately, far too often the result is unscrupulous employers' taking advantage of our country's low-wage workers.”

The report pointed to a cavalier attitude by many Wage and Hour Division investigators, saying they often dropped cases when employers did not return calls and sometimes told complaining workers that they should file lawsuits, an often expensive and arduous process, especially for low-wage workers.

During the nine-month investigation, the report said, 5 of the 10 labor complaints that undercover agents filed were not recorded in the Wage and Hour Division's database, and three were not investigated. In two cases, officials recorded that employers had paid back wages, even though they had not.

The accountability office also investigated hundreds of cases that it said the Wage and Hour Division had mishandled. In one, the division waited 22 months to investigate a complaint from a group of restaurant workers. Ultimately, investigators found that the workers were owed $230,000 because managers had made them work off the clock and had misappropriated tips. When the restaurant agreed to pay back wages but not the tips, investigators simply closed the case.

In another case, the accountability office found that workers at a boarding school in Montana were not paid more than $200,000 in overtime. But when the employer offered to pay only $1,000 in back wages as the two-year statute of limitations approached, the division dropped the case.

“We have a crisis in wage theft, and the Department of Labor has not been aggressive enough in recent years,” said Kim Bobo, executive director of Interfaith Worker Justice, a group that advocates for low-wage workers. “The new secretary of labor says she's the new sheriff in town, but I'm concerned she's facing the wild, wild West of wage theft.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis said she took the report's findings seriously.

“I am committed to ensuring that every worker is paid at least the minimum wage,” Ms. Solis said, “that those who work overtime are properly compensated, that child labor laws are strictly enforced and that every worker is provided a safe and healthful environment.”

Ms. Solis said the Wage and Hour Division planned to increase its staff by a third by hiring 250 investigators — 100 of them as part of the federal stimulus package — “to refocus the agency on these enforcement responsibilities” and “ensure that contractors on stimulus projects are in compliance with the applicable laws.”

Ms. Solis said the hirings would “reinvigorate the work of this important agency.”

Ms. Solis's predecessor, Elaine L. Chao, often defended the Wage and Hour Division, saying it had concentrated on larger, tougher cases, and secured back wages for more than 300,000 workers a year and collected more than twice as much annually as the division had done in the final years of the Clinton administration.

The report concluded that the Wage and Hour Division had mishandled more serious cases 19 percent of the time. In such cases, the accountability office said, the division did not begin an investigation for six months, did not complete an investigation for a year, did not assess back wages when violations were clearly identified and did not refer cases to litigation when warranted.

“When you have weak penalties and weak enforcement, that's a deadly combination for workers,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who, as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, asked the accountability office to do the report. “It's clear that under the existing system, employers feel they can steal workers' wages with impunity, and that has to change.”

Mr. Miller, whose committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on wage and hour enforcement on Wednesday, said he would push to enact tougher penalties for wage violations and laws that made it easier for workers to join class-action lawsuits.

The report said undercover agents recorded Wage and Hour Division officials urging workers who complained to file lawsuits. And on one recording, an investigator appeared to back off quickly on demanding back pay when an undercover agent posing as a wage-violating employer said he was financially stretched.

According to the report, the employer said, “Well, you know, like I said, all of our contracts have dried up, we really don't have anything coming in, so. ... .”

The investigator responded, “O.K., so you're not in a position where you can pay him?”

When the employer said no, the investigator seemingly gave up, saying he would let the worker “know that he has a private right of action to pursue the funds.”

The report expressed dismay with that approach. “Low-wage workers may be unable to afford attorney's fees or may be unwilling to argue their own case in small-claims court,” it said, “leaving them with no other options to obtain their back wages.”

Teamsters News Link:
BANNING MEXICAN TRUCKS HARMS WASHINGTON

(FYI — A NON-TEAMSTER OPINION)

Seattle Times
(March 23, 2009) President Barack Obama has signed an omnibus spending bill that bans Mexican trucks from the United States. Mexico has retaliated by slapping punitive taxes on some of this state's products. The president needs to settle this dispute so that trade can flow and industry here does not needlessly suffer.

More than 15 years ago, the United States promised Mexico the right to pick up or deliver cross-border cargo anywhere in America by 2000. That was in the North American Free Trade Agreement — NAFTA. Mexico promised the same rights.
When the Clinton administration refused to follow through, Mexico claimed the United States had broken the agreement. Mexico took the matter to a NAFTA tribunal, which ruled in 2001 that Mexico was right.

The Bush administration said it accepted the ruling, but did so only partly. It authorized a handful of trucks to enter the United States in a pilot program. Now, as a result of Congress' action and the president's signature, even those trucks are excluded.
In retaliation, Mexico has slapped tariffs on a long list of U.S. goods, including 20-percent taxes on potatoes and pears. Packers in this state sold $40.3 million in potatoes to Mexico last year, and $33.5 million in pears.

"It's going to be easy for Canada to swoop in and take over that business," said Kathleen Connors, president of the Washington Council on International Trade.

The ostensible reason to block Mexican trucks is that they are unsafe. It is a false reason. Mexican trucks are the same sort as used in America. Many are Kenworths. The real reason is that some people benefit, or think they do, by having cargoes unnecessarily transferred from one country's trucks to the other's at the border.

Several years ago, when Barack Obama and Joseph Biden were senators from Illinois and Delaware, respectively, both voted to exclude Mexican trucks. The president and vice-president serve the nation now, and need to take a more statesmanlike view of its commercial interests.

Teamsters News Link:
MEXICO MAY RETALIATE AGAINST TRUCK BAN; ADMINISTRATION SEEKS NEW BILL FOR PROGRAM

Daily Labor Report

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), above, sponsored the trucking amendment in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill and has written to the Obama Administration to express his willingness to work with them in good faith to address this issue of unsafe Mexican trucks on U.S. highways as debate on the legislation unfolds.

(March 18, 2009) Mexico intends to increase duties on $2.4 billion of U.S. exports of commodities like wheat, beans, beef, and rice in retaliation for the recent continuation of the U.S. ban on a cross-border Mexican Trucking Pilot Program, House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Trade Subcommittee ranking member Kevin Brady (R-Texas) announced March 16.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, at his regular briefing March 16, confirmed that Mexico intends to retaliate. Citing Congressional opposition to the Mexican Trucking Program because of concerns about its establishment and its operation, he announced that the Obama Administration has asked for new legislation to create a new Trucking Project.

“The Administration recognizes these concerns. The President has tasked the Department of Transportation to work with the U.S. trade representative and the Department of State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials, to propose legislation creating a new Trucking Project that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our [North American Free Trade Agreement] commitments,” Gibbs said.

The $410 billion Omnibus Spending Bill (H.R. 1105) cleared the Senate March 10 and was signed by President Barack Obama (49 DLR A-15, 3/17/09). The Omnibus Bill prohibits any funds being used directly or indirectly to “implement, continue, promote, or in any way permit” a Bush Administration Program to allow Mexican trucks operating beyond the commercial zones.

The Federal Motor Carrier Administration, meanwhile, issued a notice effective March 11 terminating the Project. The notice, scheduled to appear in the March 18 Federal Register, is signed by FMCSA Acting Administrator Rose A. McMurray.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who sponsored the Trucking Amendment in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, “has written to us to express his willingness to work with the Administration in good faith to address this issue,” according to Gibbs.

The full liberalization of Mexican trucking in the United States was negotiated under the 1994 NAFTA, but was never fully in effect because of concerns of some lawmakers and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters about truck safety.

Hoffa Says ‘Absurd Overreaction'
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa in a statement called the Mexican government's threat to raise tariffs on U.S. exports “an absurd overreaction to the shutdown of the unsafe cross-border Trucking Pilot Program.”

Hoffa added, “The border must stay closed until Mexico holds up its end of the bargain.”

The two GOP lawmakers called on the Obama Administration to develop a better Trucking Program that assures the safety of U.S. highways and eliminates the new penalties. “I stand ready to work with the President to accomplish these goals,” Camp said in a statement.

The Bush Administration project had allowed certain Mexican trucks to travel beyond the 25-mile border zone starting in September 2007. Congress had shut off funds for the Project in the 2008 appropriations bill, but the ban expired at the end of the fiscal year.

Only about three Mexican trucks per day traveled beyond the border zone since September 2007, Hoffa said, citing the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General.

Brady, for his part, called for an approach that would address safety concerns “without erecting trade barriers that allow Mexico to retaliate against us and create drastic consequences for our exporters.”

“Because Congress has terminated the Pilot Program in violation of our NAFTA obligations, Mexico has announced that it will retaliate against us, as it is entitled to do, by increasing duties on $2.4 billion of U.S. exports of key commodities like wheat, beans, beef, and rice,” Brady said.

“Such retaliation makes these U.S. products significantly less competitive and could close the Mexican market to many of our exports. If the Administration fails to develop such a Program and we continue to disregard our obligations, we are punishing our farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers at a time when our economy is in great distress.”

Teamsters News Link:
BYPARTISAN ‘GANG OF NINE’ SENATE GROUP MAKING PROGRESS ON HEALTH CARE

Time – Online
(March 13, 2009, by Jay Newton) A bipartisan group of nine U.S. senators, after meeting for nine months behind closed doors, is nearing an agreement on the broad strokes of a health care reform bill. The so-called Gang of Nine though its number expands and contracts depending on the meeting is hammering out the finer points as they prepare to enter the drafting phase of the negotiations, sources from three Senate offices involved in the talks tell TIME.


Above, left-to-right, are two of the “Gang of Nine” United States Senators, Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and Republican Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

The talks have been held in parallel to negotiations orchestrated by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which has principally involved outside groups like insurers, doctors, labor and big business. Aides to the bipartisan group of lawmakers, citing the delicacy of the talks, provided no details of the potential agreement.

However, the two main sticking points remain how to pay for a plan that some estimate could cost as much as $1 trillion and how to integrate a public, government-run plan into the private system, two aides say. …

Last June's Senate health care summit helped spark the closed-door gatherings, which at first involved just six members: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and the committee's top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa; Ted Kennedy and the HELP Committee's top Republican, Mike Enzi of Wyoming; and Senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Orrin Hatch of Utah, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health Care.

In recent months Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a top HELP Committee Democrat, was added as Kennedy's understudy as the Massachusetts Democrat sought treatment for brain cancer. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota and his GOP counterpart Judd Gregg of New Hampshire were also added after President Barack Obama included his $634 billion outline for health care reform in his 2010 budget request.

Other senators from the Democratic leadership and the HELP and Finance Committees have been intermittently involved, and the core group has encouraged participation of as many members as possible.

The Senate moves come as three House committees -- Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce and Education & Workforce -- Wednesday sent a letter to President Obama announcing their intention to work together to draft legislation.

The cooperation among committees in both chambers is a break from the 1994 attempt at health care reform, when committee infighting helped sink that effort. Both chambers have said they intend to see legislation reach the floor before the August recess, though many admit the tougher part will come when the differences between the two versions must be reconciled.

“The House bill will be the high water mark of what we'd like to do with the system,” says one Democratic Senate staffer involved in the talks. “Still, we don't have 60 votes yet. So the House is going to have to accept, to a certain degree, what we work out here.”

Having the Senate Budget Committee leaders involved in the talks is especially noteworthy, as it suggests the group is grappling with the issues of Paygo a requirement that all new spending be offset by reductions to avoid adding to the deficit. Their presence could also indicate the group is considering moving the final bill through budget reconciliation, the end-of-the-year budget bill that needs only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Senate, avoiding a potential GOP filibuster.

Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats about trying to pass health care in that fashion, saying it goes against the spirit of a normal legislative process for such a sweeping bill.

Many Democrats have argued, in return, that President Bush pushed several large initiatives through this same process, such as his tax cuts and deficit reduction legislation. But Rockefeller recently said that he worried trying to use budget reconciliation to pass health care reform would effectively poison the well. “If you go for budget reconciliation, you're basically going for a bill that goes nowhere,” he said.

Baucus announced last week a schedule to have his up his side of the bill marked up by the end of June. Starting in late April the Finance Committee will hold a series of public round tables followed by closed-door, member-to-member sessions on the delivery system public or private, or some combination of the two in which individual members can weigh in on their own plans and ideas. Other issues of coverage, cost containment and prevention and wellness will see similar treatment, aides say.

The HELP committee will have its own schedule on the prevention and wellness provisions, as well as the parts of the bill involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (known as ERISA), which regulates employer-offered health insurance plans. Rockefeller will first hold his own series of hearings in March and early April on quality, long-term care and the importance of a competitive and open bidding process.

Teamsters News Release:
FIGHTING FOR THE EFCA
LABOR UNIONS KNOW THERE IS SAFETY IN NUMBERS

As IBT General President Jim Hoffa and many others have pointed out, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are currently mounting a huge campaign to kill the Employee Free Choice Act before it even gets off the ground.

(March 2, 2009) “Every day in the United States, dozens of workers who legally try to join a union are spied on, harassed, intimidated, and fired. Union-busting is a thriving industry for corporate thugs and lawyers throughout this country.

“It didn't used to be this way. In the 1950’s, only a handful of workers were illegally disciplined or fired for union activity, resulting in back-pay awards. In 2006, 32,000 workers were awarded back-pay by the National Labor Relations Board because employers illegally punished them for trying to join a union.

“The Employee Free Choice Act would give back to workers a fair shot at joining a union. It is our No. 1 priority to see that Congress enacts it.

“Now, I don't like to call people liars. But the multimillion-dollar corporate campaign to kill the legislation is making a lot of people say things that aren't true. One falsehood is that the act would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. It would not. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to choose a secret ballot or majority sign-up when deciding whether to join a union. Under majority sign-up, workers could join a union if most of them sign cards saying that they want to join a union.

“I think that's fair. If you can sign a card to join the Republican Party, you should be able to sign a card to join a union.
“The way it works now, it's the employer, not the worker, who holds all the power and chooses how workers will make the decision to join a union.

“Employers almost always choose secret elections. These elections are fair in the way secret elections in East Germany were fair. Employers hire union-busters to determine workers' preferences. Workers who support unions are threatened, intimidated, and fired.

“Melinda Burns, for example, worked as a reporter for the News-Press in Santa Barbara, Calif., for 21 years. Burns led the fight to join a union. She and 80 percent of News-Press staffers signed cards stating they wanted to join a union. But her employer wouldn't recognize the cards. The workers were forced by the employer to hold a secret election.
“In the fall of 2006, the News-Press workers cast secret ballots in favor of joining a union. But the employer challenged the vote. Eight workers, including Burns, were fired for their union activity.

“A year ago, an administrative law judge ruled that the News-Press firings broke the law. The judge ordered the employer to reinstate the workers immediately and give them back-pay.

“The News-Press appealed the ruling, as management usually does. Melinda Burns is still waiting to get her back-pay and her job back.

“Remember, she was illegally fired nearly three years ago.

“Unfortunately, there are thousands of Melinda Burnses in America today. I talk to pro-union workers who are illegally videotaped by their employer. I talk to pro-union workers who get fired just to send a message to other workers that they'd better not try to join a union.

“Americans want their workplaces to be fair. That's why they support the Employee Free Choice Act by overwhelming margins. A January 8 Hart Research Associates poll showed 73 percent of American adults want the legislation to become law.
“There's another false argument against the legislation — that strengthening unions will damage the economy. The fact is that America experienced its greatest economic growth when unions were strong. Union membership stood at 35 percent of the workforce in the 1950s, a time when America enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Now, only 12 percent of the workforce belongs to unions, and we're in the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

“In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce in a 2007 speech: ‘Whatever the precise mechanism through which lower rates of unionization affected the wage structure, the available research suggests that it can explain between 10 percent and 20 percent of the rise in wage inequality among men during the 1970s and 1980s.’
“Enacting the Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen unions and improve our economy. I urge Congress to pass it soon.”