Views Archives for Sept-Oct 2009

Seattle Times Very Wrong:
‘LABOR WILL SUPPORT CHAMPIONS OF OUR VALUES’

Washington State Labor Council
(November 30, 2009) A few days ago a “guest column” by Washington State Labor Council President Rick Bender appeared in the Seattle Times. It was written in response to a November 15 Seattle Times editorial which trashed the WSLC and its “friends,” which of course include Teamsters Local 174.

The Bender response is printed below, and in it is a link to the Seattle Times editorial, if you want to read that.

REWARDING THE LEGISLATIVE CHAMPIONS OF LABOR’S INTERESTS By RICK BENDER, President, Washington State Labor Council
A shift in the political strategies of organized labor here in Washington seems to have exposed the reality of The Times editorial board's corporate agenda: dominance over a subservient work force ["Washington state's labor leaders don't get it," editorial, November 15, 2009].

Rick Bender was elected President of the Washington State Labor Council in March 1993. Prior to that he served as WSLC Vice President (1988-1993); Executive Secretary of the King County Labor Council (1991-1993); and Executive Secretary of the Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council (1987-1991).

A member of Laborers Local 242 and Elevator Constructors Local 19, he began his long accomplished career with organized labor as an apprentice with Cement Masons Local 528 in 1966. Rick also was a State Legislator from 1973 to 1991, serving 10 years in the House and eight in the Senate.

Among his accomplishments in Olympia were serving as Senate Majority Whip, House Assistant Majority Leader and chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. A Vietnam War veteran, he majored in economics at the University of Puget Sound.

The labor movement makes no apologies for our mission to help workers find their voice in the workplace. We will continue to be a leader supporting progressive politics that give rise to better conditions for workers, including a strong minimum wage, defined benefit pensions, quality affordable health care, and safety in the workplace.

We believe that our fight is even more crucial in the face of the shaky moral compass with which business directs itself today. The huge disparity of income rising from the obscene salaries of executives, the collapse of the financial industry, the structure of corporate greed, and the destruction of our middle-class security exposed the business mantra — the end justifies any means, no matter who gets left behind.

Our political involvement is a way to inject fairness into the process. For years the Democratic Party stood beside us in our quest to help workers prevail over corporate interests. But over the past few years the Democratic caucus has watered down its positions on worker rights, and has tossed aside its responsibility to stand strong for the little guy.

We refuse to join them in the race to the bottom. We believe that what we have here in our state is good for workers and good for business and we won't give up our fight to keep it that way.
The Times is out of touch with the reality of the business climate here in Washington state. At the national level, we have consistently been recognized as a great place to do business. But locally, the business community and its lobbyists in Olympia ignore those high rankings and instead want our Legislature to follow South Carolina's lead.

South Carolina's low wages and lack of unionization were the primary lures for Boeing when the company chose to locate its second 787 production line there. If business climate had anything to do with it, the choice would have been different.

In the same Forbes Magazine poll, which ranks Washington as the second-best state in the nation for business, South Carolina was ranked 26th. The unemployment-insurance system in South Carolina — the linchpin of survival for a laid-off worker — is bankrupt. The education system ranks near the bottom of the nation. And when reading about scandals from the offices of South Carolina's governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, it seems the state's political leadership is bankrupt as well.

This is not the path that we at the Washington State Labor Council choose for the workers of our state. That is why we have made a change in our political program — why our affiliates have opted to evaluate our legislators according to how they champion the rights of working people — not merely by the "D" or "R" next to their names.

And that is why we will support champions of our values instead of giving in to corporate dominance over a subservient work force.

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
HEALTH HAGGLING HEATING UP

Wall Street Journal
BY WSJ Reporter JANET ADAMY
(November 23, 2009) Democratic leaders finally moved their sweeping health bill to the Senate floor, where wheeling and dealing over major unresolved and divisive issues likely will shape the legislation before its next big test.

HEALTH-CARE DEBATE MOVES TO SENATE FLOOR
Democratic senators voted 60 to 39 to move sweeping health-care legislation to the Senate floor. What is the significance of the move and what's ahead in the debate. A handful of Democrat centrists say they can't support the government-sponsored health-insurance plan — known as the public option — that is included in the bill. And Democrats are divided over abortion, an issue that nearly derailed the House earlier this month when it narrowly passed a health bill that blocked abortion coverage from federally subsidized insurance plans, including some run by private insurers.

Another growing concern even as the bill progresses is the political heat on Democrats over expanded government spending amid rising unemployment and deficit concerns.

"We simply cannot ignore the growth in the federal government," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, one of those centrists. She was the last Democrat ahead of the vote to declare her support, ensuring Democrats would have the 60 they needed to overcome Republican stalling tactics. But she and other holdouts warned that doesn't mean they'll support final passage.

The 60-39 vote Saturday night, November 21, set the stage for as many as three weeks of debate and compromise in December and perhaps more in January, a struggle that is sure to color the 2010 fight for control of Congress. If the bill passes the Senate, it will then need to be reconciled with a version already passed by the House and then the final bill will have to pass the entire Congress before being sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

REPUBLICANS STILL HAVE INFLUENCE
Republicans, even in the minority, have leverage to shape the Senate debate. They portray the legislation as a huge long-term liability for U.S. taxpayers. "It raises premiums," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) on "Fox News Sunday." "It raises taxes. It cuts Medicare."

Groups with a stake in the legislation — insurers, drug makers, small businesses, unions — are also gearing up for one of their final chances to change the health bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be at the center of the deal making, balancing contention with compromise on major components of the bill and smaller matters that might win over senators wavering in their support.

Saturday's vote was a preview of sorts. In a nod to liberal Democrats, Mr. Reid included a public-insurance plan in his bill, while giving states the right to opt out of it. After appeals from Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, Mr. Reid tucked in a Medicaid-spending provision to benefit her hurricane-hit state.

NO ‘MINORITY’ RULE AMONG DEMOCRATS
Liberals said Sunday they want to preserve the public-insurance plan, insisting the government needs to get involved to ensure people have an affordable alternative to private insurance.

"I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us, and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it's not going to be in it," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) on CNN's "State of the Union."

The four senators most skeptical of the public-insurance option are Ms. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent. With varying degrees of firmness, all four have said their votes can't be counted for a final bill with a public plan as proposed by Sen. Reid. They say it would get the government too involved in health care and fear it wouldn't be self-supporting as planned, forcing the government into an expensive bailout.

THE CARPER COMPROMISE
The seemingly irreconcilable positions led Sen. Tom Carper, even before the Saturday vote, to begin working on a possible compromise that would create a government-insurance plan available initially in states where insurance is deemed to be unaffordable for average American families. Under the Delaware Democrat's still-evolving idea, the plan would be set up by the Department of Health and Human Services, and would eventually be overseen by a nonprofit board. States where insurance is considered affordable could participate or not in the government plan.

"We're trying to find something that addresses [centrist] concern about government-run, government-funded [plans], but still addresses the needs for affordability and the need for competition in states that don't have it," Mr. Carper said.

After Saturday's vote, Mr. Reid expressed hope that Mr. Carper's efforts would bear fruit. Ms. Landrieu said she wants a "better and bipartisan solution" to the issue and showed sympathy for a proposal by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has suggested a trigger that would put the public plan in effect only if other steps don't expand coverage as planned.

While Mr. Lieberman has been the most determined in stating his refusal to vote for a bill that includes a public-insurance plan, some Democrats believe Ms. Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election fight next year, may present the most nettlesome case. She left a hint of wiggle room, saying she doesn't support the public plan "as written."

If the holdout senators stick to their guns, some kind of change to the public plan is likely to come to the floor. But even after a change, the broader bill would again need 60 votes to pass, putting Mr. Reid in a tough spot since liberal senators want to avoid weakening the bill.

ABORTION ISSUE STILL DEEPLY IN THE PICTURE
The abortion-funding issue likely will lead to another amendment. Antiabortion advocates, led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are pushing for tighter restrictions. "The sanctity of life is not an issue that can be traded away for political expediency," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), who is leading the fight on the Senate floor.

The Senate bill allows women who receive a government subsidy for health insurance to enroll in a plan that covers abortion. The bill also includes the procedure in the public health-insurance plan. In both instances, women would have to use private money to pay for an abortion.

The bishops want to ban most types of abortion coverage for any plan held by a person receiving a government subsidy. They won such a ban in an amendment approved at the last minute by the House, and abortion-rights advocates are fighting to avoid the same outcome in the Senate.

The 2,074-page Senate bill, estimated to cost $848 billion over a decade, is designed to achieve Mr. Obama's goals of extending health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, while controlling the growth of health-care costs. Groups with a stake in the legislation are also gearing up for one of their final chances to change the health bill.

TEAMSTERS AND OTHERS FIGHTING ‘CADILLAC’ TAX
Unions are still fighting a proposed tax on high-value insurance plans. Many health-policy specialists say the tax will discourage private employers from offering "Cadillac" plans that do little to control health costs. Currently those plans enjoy the same favored tax status as thriftier plans.

"The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just dead wrong," said Jim Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Small businesses, which the White House is courting, are lobbying for more generous tax credits. Under the bill, businesses with 10 or fewer employees who earn an average of $20,000 or less would be eligible for tax credits worth up to 50% of the employer's insurance costs. The National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group, wants to extend the reach of those credits.

"To get it through for us, it's going to have to show that it's going to do more to lower the costs for small businesses," said federation president Dan Danner.

Drug makers plan to fend off attempts by Democrats to make them offer additional discounts for prescriptions the government provides to people who are eligible for both the Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
‘WE GOT SHAFT ON CARHAUL’
The Street

[(November 18, 2009) The Teamsters were early backers of Barack Obama for President, but now the Union says automakers that benefited from an Administration Bailout are targeting Union truck drivers who transport new cars.

Expiring contracts with unionized carhaul companies have enabled Chrysler to seek the low bidder to transport new cars from plants and rail yards to dealers, and GM is following the same course. Chrysler's contracts expired Oct. 1, while GM's contract expires Jan. 1.

The automakers say they need to reduce costs where possible in a competitive global auto market. The Union has mounted an aggressive campaign against the shift.

"We are perplexed to the fact that the bailout money was intended to keep good-paying middle class American jobs, but the auto companies are taking the money and destroying good middle class jobs," says Fred Zuckerman, Director of the Carhaul Division for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and President of Teamsters Local 89 in Louisville, Kentucky. Kentucky is the third largest auto-production state.

"We supported Obama, no doubt about that," Zuckerman says. "Then he decided to bail out the Industry. Now, the manufacturers want to put our guys out on the street and we have to change their minds."

About 4,800 Teamsters currently work in the Carhaul Industry, down from about 10,000 just two years ago. Then, Union drivers hauled about 78% of the new cars produced in the U.S. by domestic and foreign manufacturers: Today, the Union share is between 60% and 70%. Teamster drivers earn as much as $70,000 to $80,000 annually, working 60 to 70 hours a week.

"Cars are very fragile when they are in transit," and replacement carhaulers often lack the expertise to haul them, Zuckerman says. "These folks don't have the proper training and equipment to haul cars. They use the wrong hooks and put them in the wrong places," causing damage and delays.

Incidents of damage are detailed at a Teamster Website, www.carbuyersbeware.com. Additionally, the Union has produced a report that cites safety problems at non-union carhaul companies: It will be released to Congress... Union members also have leafleted 400 dealerships in 40 states.

Chrysler spokeswoman Shawn Morgan says the automaker has shifted about 28% of its carhaul business. Chrysler has been spending $111 million annually to haul cars, but says that cost will eventually diminish by $31 million annually as a result of its vendor shift on select routes.

About 75% of the business will remain with Teamster-staffed companies, Atlanta-based Allied Systems Holdings and Illinois-based Cassens Transport Co., even though "Chrysler has been working for over a year with (the pair) to get them more competitive, but in that time they have not made the effort necessary to become more competitive," Morgan said.

Meanwhile, General Motors is negotiating with both union and non-union car haul companies and "has no plans to phase out unionized hauling companies," said spokesman Alan Adler. "We are currently in contract negotiations with several haul-away companies, both Union and non-union, due to contract expirations," he said.

"Our focus is to help solidify the most profitable business arrangements with our current providers and then to conduct a competitive bid process for the remaining business requirements," Adler noted. "We are committed to working collaboratively with our supply base to achieve mutually beneficial results."

The Ford and Toyota contracts with the Union carhaul companies expire June 1. "Ford is not a problem yet," Cassens says, but the union worries that it could follow the lead of its competitors.

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
TAKING PUBLIC OUTRAGE ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

Union City
(November 17, 2009) FROM UNION CITY, METRO WASHINGTON COUNCIL NEWS, AFL-CIO — Calling investment bank Goldman Sachs “pure evil,” hundreds of taxpayers and local labor activists converged on the Wall Street financial firm’s Washington, DC office at noon yesterday to demand an end to multi-billion dollar bonuses at banks which received money from the federal stimulus package.

“Goldman Sachs, you’re the worst; it’s time to put the people first!” chanted the demonstrators, outraged that Goldman Sachs is projecting $23 billion in bonuses and compensation this year.

“We’re angry that big banks have been bailed out but nothing has come to help Main Street,” Barb Kalbach (at right foreground in the picture), a Registered Nurse and member of the Iowa Citizens For Community Improvement, told Union City. “The reality is that while Goldman Sachs floats, we drown!” she added.

Andrew Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, called on Congress to “implement immediate financial reform,” and demanded that the projected $23 billion in bonuses go to foreclosure prevention programs. “This company is putting greed over human need,” said Stern. “It’s pure evil.” [Report and photo by Adam Wright.]

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
UNIONS ASK CONGRESS TO BACK OFF HEALTH TAXES

Variety.com
(November 12, 2009) Showbiz is getting into the health care fight. The presidents of SAG, the WGA and the Hollywood Teamsters have asked Congress to back off a proposed tax that would hit the "Cadillac" health plans that cover members of their unions. The letter sent to House and Senate reps earlier this month was signed by SAG's Ken Howard, WGA West's John Wells, WGA East's Michael Winship and Teamsters Local 399's Leo Reed.

The quartet said they were concerned by provisions of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee last month that would levy a new tax against high-value health care plans, or so-called "Cadillac plans." Such a tax could put a serious dent in the finances of union health plans that have already been battered by stock market declines and ever-rising health care costs.

The House narrowly approved a health care reform bill late Saturday after weeks of bare-knuckle partisan brawling over the contentious issue. Democrats in the Senate have said they are hoping to hold a vote on their health care reform package before Christmas. At this point, it's uncertain if the final version of the Senate bill will include any tax on "Cadillac" plans — but showbiz union leaders aren't waiting to weigh in.

"We applaud your efforts to expand affordable health care coverage to more Americans and to reform the health insurance industry," the letter from the guild toppers said. "However, we are deeply troubled by the provisions of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee that would levy a new tax against so-called 'Cadillac plans.' The individual unions and guilds of the entertainment industry have struggled and sacrificed for decades to negotiate and defend their own Taft-Hartley health insurance plans."

The presidents said the Senate Finance version of the bill would place "catastrophic" burdens on maintaining health benefits.

"For decades our individual guilds and unions have had to forgo wage increases and other benefits simply to maintain the current level of health benefits for our members," the letter said. "It is a choice our members were forced to make over and over at the bargaining table — affordable health care versus better wages — and our members chose health care for themselves and their families every time."

If the proposed tax is enacted, it could "jeopardize our ability to keep our plans solvent," the letter said.

The unions' health and pension plans are funded by employer contributions and administered jointly by reps of the unions and the employers. SAG's pension and health plans, for example, receive a payment from the employer equal to 15% of an actor's compensation for any given job.

The plans have been hit by the decline in the stock market — which has lowered the value of their investments — and the generally slowdown in showbiz employment, particularly in the highest-paying job classifications of primetime network TV and feature films.

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
TRICK FOR DEMOCRATS IS JUGGLING IDEOLOGY AND PRAGMATISM

New York Times
(November 10, 2009) Democrats have displayed a striking degree of pragmatism in seeking to push the health care bill through Congress, embracing or rejecting ideological considerations as needed to keep the legislation moving.

But if the flexibility shown by party leaders on issues like abortion and the proposed government-run insurance plan has kept the legislative process on track, it has also left many liberals off balance and risked alienating the party's base as the midterm elections approach.

“I am having people come up to me and say, ‘This is the most tepid revolution we have ever had,' ” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York. Mr. Weiner dropped his insistence on a vote for a government-run single-payer system in deference to Democratic leaders as the House passed a health care bill with two votes to spare.

The challenge of balancing ideology and pragmatism confronting Democrats stems from the party's success in building large but diverse majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

In both of those cycles, the party aggressively recruited candidates who could win in traditionally non-Democratic areas, producing a class of legislators that has a decidedly conservative stance on issues like abortion, gun control and the size of government.

Democrats are now encountering the complications of that success, and a task that faced Republicans during periods of both the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations: How to manage an ideologically diverse caucus to produce legislative victories without alienating base voters.

Republicans ran up big legislative victories under Mr. George W. Bush but then found conservatives becoming dispirited over issues like the creation of a Medicare prescription drug plan and rapid growth in government spending.

The loss of enthusiasm among conservatives contributed to the Democratic resurgence in 2006 and 2008. Democrats said they were aware of a similar risk with the party's left wing; on Monday, more than 40 liberal Democrats signed a letter pledging to vote against a final health bill if it, like the bill passed Saturday, blocks the use of federal subsidies for insurance that covers elective abortions.

In going down that road, the White House and Congressional leaders have calculated that winning a health care bill that expands coverage to tens of millions of uninsured people, an unrealized aspiration of Democratic ideology for more than a generation, would in effect eclipse any concerns liberals have about some of the compromises the party makes.

“Look at the Republicans,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and the leader of the House Democrats' campaign operations. “They have been rigid ideologues, and I think if you want to govern effectively you have to be willing to find the common ground. If you are so rigid that you refuse to entertain any other ideas, you will become so rigid it will break. You are not going to be able to get things done.”

Not incidentally, two Democratic leaders who were critical in recruiting the candidates who led the Democrats to control of the Senate are now playing central roles in the health care debate: Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who once held Mr. Van Hollen's job, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who headed the Senate Democratic campaign committee and is now No. 3 in the Democratic leadership in the Senate.

Mr. Emanuel, in an interview, disputed the notion that electoral success was breeding legislative difficulty. “Did it get harder?” he said. “It's been hard for 70 years. And it would not be possible without being in the majority. Everything after that is Monday morning quarterbacking.” Mr. Schumer, who recruited Democratic candidates who did not support abortion rights if he judged them better positioned to win their states, said: “Look, getting to 60 means by definition you are going to have a lot of senators from red states.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who protested the insertion of the abortion language in the House version of the bill, said she nonetheless was struck by just what Congress has accomplished. “An ideologically diverse caucus came together and supported an excellent piece of legislation,” Ms. DeLauro said. “What would the alternative have been? To kill health reform?”

Still, Democrats are clearly remembering what happened to Republicans under Mr. Bush when conservative voters stayed away from the polls, permitting Democrats to win House seats in otherwise Republican districts. Mr. Weiner added: “The problem we have today is that the White House has approached this with a kind of cold pragmatism — ‘let's just get a score up on the board' — which is a particularly frustrating tone when much of our base was animated ideologically in 2008 because they wanted health care and things like that.”

For all that, Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative who played an important role under Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan in keeping the conservative coalition together, said he was not convinced that Democrats would lose the support of liberal voters if the final bill included the abortion restrictions or failed to include the so-called public plan. “I tend to think that hard-line D's and hard-line R's show up to vote,” he said.

The three principal players — President Barack Obama; Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, and Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader — have a history of different approaches. Ms. Pelosi is a liberal, which some Democrats suggested gave her added flexibility in making the kind of compromises that got the bill through over the weekend, to the distress of other liberals. Mr. Reid is more of a pragmatist, and personally moderate. Mr. Obama has been more of an enigma, though his overall thrust on health care has been very much in keeping with liberals on the issues.

Representative George Miller of California, the Democratic chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and one of Ms. Pelosi's closest advisers, said that if the caucus was struggling after winning so many seats in centrist or Republican-leaning districts, it was a problem he was glad to have. “What's the alternative?” he said. “To remain in the minority? I tried that for 12 years, and this is much better, whatever the makeup of the caucus.”

Back to top of page

 

Teamsters News Link:
CLIMATE CHANGE ON BACK BURNER?

Politico Online

(November 4, 2009) Climate change has slipped so far down on the agenda that at least one key committee chairman has suggested it might have to wait until after the 2010 elections.

A number of factors are conspiring against the Senate version of the bill: a Republican boycott on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a new EPA analysis that could take at least five weeks and wide-ranging disagreements among six competing Senate committee leaders who have jurisdiction.

“Some people are talking about not doing it until after the 2010 election,” Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday.

Rockefeller's comments came as Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would run another comprehensive study of the final legislation after it is compiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Rockefeller is one of the leading critics of Boxer's bill, saying it doesn't include enough incentives for the coal industry.

David McIntosh, EPA's associate administrator for congressional relations, told Boxer's committee Tuesday that such a study would take at least five weeks — which guarantees that nothing will be done before international climate talks this December in Copenhagen.

The additional study was announced in hopes of placating the seven Republicans on the committee, who are boycotting hearings on the legislation until additional economic analysis is completed.

Boxer has pushed to pass legislation out of the EPW Committee before the Copenhagen talks, saying that it would give the international community a strong signal on where the United States is headed on climate policy.

But before the EPA can even begin to examine the bill, the six Senate committees with jurisdiction over pieces of the bill must finish their work on the legislation. So far, only one — the Energy and Natural Resources Committee — has passed a climate bill. At least two other committees have yet to set a date to mark up climate legislation, and several of the committees are chaired by moderate Democrats who are much more hesitant about embracing a cap-and-trade bill.

“Obviously, it's not an issue we will be readily addressing this year,” said Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, on whom Democrats are counting to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster.

Democratic leaders also seem unwilling to expend much political capital on climate change when they aren't even sure when health care reform might get done.

“We're not going to be bound by any timelines” on health care, Reid told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Senate Democrats.

The more time health care takes, say supporters, the further a climate bill most likely gets pushed back.

“Obviously, given where we are today, we have to wait for the [Congressional Budget Office] scoring on the health care bill,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “That's going to push us back.”

But Rockefeller warned that the difficulty of passing a bill will increase as the elections draw closer.

“It does make it tougher; everyone gets more scared,” he said.

Republicans plan to use cap and trade as a line of attack next year — particularly against vulnerable Democrats from industrial states.

But even with all these obstacles, Kerry, who has become the lead negotiator on climate change, still thinks a deal could be made by Christmas.

“I absolutely believe it's possible. It's Nov. 3 today. We're talking about seven weeks from now.”

Back to top of page

IBT News Release:
TEAMSTERS COMMEND DECISION TO FIX HOURS OF SERVICE RULE
FEDERAL REGULATORS MUST PROTECT WORKERS’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

(October 29, 2009) Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa this week said he is pleased that federal regulators agreed to reform the Hours of Service Rule for truck drivers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) signed an agreement with safety advocates and the Teamsters Union to revise the Hours of Service rule issued last November. The Rule, a “midnight regulation” made final in the waning days of the Bush Administration, extended the hours truckers can drive from 10 hours to 11 hours.

“We will continue to push for a rule that protects trucks drivers, instead of the greed of the Trucking Industry,” Hoffa said. “Longer hours behind the wheel are dangerous for our members and the driving public.”

The rule was struck down twice by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court.

But in defiance of the Court and in subservience to the Trucking Industry, the FMCSA reinstated it as an Interim Final Rule in late 2007 and as a Final Rule about a year later.

The percentage of fatal crashes that result from driver fatigue rose 20 percent in 2005 from 2004 — the first year in which the longer hours of driving were allowed.

“It’s time for FMCSA to do what Congress has told it to do all along – protect drivers’ health and safety,” Hoffa said.

SOME HISTORY
The Bush Rule raised the number of hours truckers can drive from 10 to 11 consecutive hours each shift, and from 60 to 77 hours of driving each week. The Rule cut off-duty rest and recovery time at the workweek’s end from 50 or more hours off duty to as little as 34 hours off-duty.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) first promulgated the 11-hour Rule in 2003, increasing the number of hours truckers can drive. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the Rule in 2004, but Congress reinstated it as part of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004.

FMCSA issued a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in January 2005, proposing a Rule that was little changed from the 2003 Rule that had been struck down.

On July 24, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for the second time threw out the Rule that increased driving time to 11 hours from 10 hours and allowed drivers to go back to work after being off duty for only 34 hours.

ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
In the 39-page opinion, Judge Merrick Garland called the Rule “arbitrary and capricious.”

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was a party in the case, joining Public Citizen and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association.

The deadline for the Court’s July decision to go into effect was Sept. 14. But legal challenges pushed that deadline back. FMCSA issued the Interim Final Rule on Dec. 11, 2007.

The Court declined on Jan. 23 to enforce its order to strike the Rule, and the Bush Administration issued it as a Final Rule on Nov. 19.

The Teamsters — along with Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the Truck Safety Coalition — challenged the Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Back to top of page

 

IBT News Link:
OBAMA WRESTLING WITH JOBS OUTLOOK

Wall Street Journal
(October 23, 2009) WASHINGTON -- Increasingly alarmed over bleak employment forecasts, the Obama administration is searching for ways to boost job growth without adding to the federal budget deficit.

White House economist Christina Romer, in remarks that ratcheted up the administration's pessimism, told a congressional panel Thursday that "labor market conditions will remain painfully weak through 2010." She said that the jobless rate, which hit 9.8% last month, would likely remain "at its severely elevated level" for at least another year.

In testimony before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, Ms. Romer said the federal stimulus package will have its greatest effects this year and "will likely be contributing little to growth" by the middle of next year. She also warned that the growing clamor to address the high unemployment rate had to be balanced against the rising tide of red ink.

Obama aides and Democratic lawmakers face sharp restraints as they weigh new options for job creation heading into an election year. They are loath to take steps that would suggest their $787 billion stimulus package isn't sufficiently effective. And they are wary of adding to the budget deficit, which for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 topped $1.4 trillion, a level not seen since World War II.

Most of the proposals being considered would extend programs already under way. The White House now appears ready to back the extension of an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. Many Democratic lawmakers support the idea, though the program's credibility has been undermined by reports of thousands of fraudulent and erroneous claims.

Obama aides have also embraced extending enhanced unemployment-insurance benefits, which Congress is likely to approve over the next few days, and subsidies for the unemployed to purchase health insurance.

The White House is also moving to inject capital into small businesses. President Barack Obama proposed legislation Wednesday to raise the ceiling on certain Small Business Administration loans. The White House also wants Congress to approve steps to provide lower-cost capital to community banks. Both would use existing funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Another White House proposal would redeploy TARP funds to help struggling rural and urban communities by offering small-businesses loans at 2% interest for up to eight years.

Members of the White House economic team are now meeting twice a week, on average, to discuss job creation, according to a senior administration official who participates. The discussions are "lively," with sharp differences over what will work quickly and effectively, this person said. The administration plans to eschew any larger package of jobs measures in favor of a series of smaller programs.

But skepticism remains high over whether any of the measures under consideration would spur significant job creation. Business executives are calling for more dramatic moves, including passage of a proposed six-year, $500 billion highway infrastructure bill, which some Democrats want to see funded through an increase in gasoline taxes.

"The reality for our industry is that the stimulus bill has not been a jobs bill," Ron DaFeo, chief executive of Terex Corp., said in an interview. With construction down sharply across the U.S., Terex, one of the world's largest construction-equipment makers by sales, has laid off 4,000 U.S. employees since the summer of 2008. Mr. DaFeo, who says he plans to be "very judicious" in rehiring, has been lobbying lawmakers to move ahead quickly on the highway bill.
The Obama administration has called for holding off on a big highway bill until next year, partly to avoid Republican portrayal of the bill as another stimulus package.

The White House, meanwhile, has been seeking ideas recently from the private sector, including from a group of high-level CEOs who are in frequent contact with Mr. Obama's top economic advisers.

Dan DiMicco, chief executive of steelmaker Nucor Corp., was part of a private CEO lunch with Mr. Obama in late July. He and his staff have since advised the White House to redirect federal stimulus money into more immediate infrastructure projects.

"The reality is that we have to find ways to create millions and millions of new jobs over the next five years," Mr. DiMicco said.

Other CEOs have called for corporate tax cuts to spur job growth, an avenue the administration appears unlikely to take.

In Congress, many Democrats are reluctant to take on more costly initiatives, preferring to wait a month or two before deciding whether to push through bigger-ticket ideas. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said lawmakers increasingly agree that some intermediate steps must be taken, including the unemployment-insurance extension, the health-coverage subsidy and the home buyers' tax credit. "As for additional bigger-ticket items, that will depend on how the economy develops," Mr. Van Hollen said.

But Democrats worry about heading into an election year with joblessness so high. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who said Wednesday that "the No. 1 subject on the minds of the American people" was "jobs, jobs, jobs" -- has asked the chairs of committees controlling spending for ideas on quick job creation.

Back to top of page

 

Fighting to Save Lives:
OCTOBER IS BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
JOINT COUNCIL 28 AND MANY FELLOW TEAMSTER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE U.S. HAVE BEEN BUSY RAISING FUNDS TO HELP FIND A CURE FOR THIS DREADED DISEASE

(October 19, 2009) October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many folks don’t know that, and the month is already two-thirds over. It’s an important reminder that awareness is critical to preventing, treating, and one day, finding a cure for breast cancer. Before the end of the year, more than 192,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States.

Regular check ups and mammograms are a key part of early detection. If caught early enough, the five-year survival rate for women can reach 98 percent. Still, only 30 percent of uninsured women have had a mammogram in the past two years, compared with 70 percent of insured women. This underscored the importance of access to affordable, quality health care.

Teamsters are doing their part to build awareness and raise funds for breast cancer research not just in October, but all year long: 

Teamsters with Joint Council 28 participated in the 2009 Susan G. Komen Puget Sound Race for the Cure in June, raising $8,210 in donations. The “Teamsters Care” Team has raised $29,810 over the past five years toward education, screening and treatment support accessible to thousands of women who would otherwise go untreated.

In May, more than 300 Teamsters with Joint Council 25 raised over $5,000 in donations to support breast cancer research, completing a three-mile walk with their families near Chicago’s lakefront to benefit the Network of Strength — formerly the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization — in its financial and peer support of those currently affected by the disease. 

Teamster members, locals, local women’s committees and Joint Councils that are planning educational events or fundraisers for Breast Cancer Awareness Month are encouraged to submit this information. If you are a Teamster breast cancer survivor, the IBT would like to hear your story. Submitted materials will be considered for publication on the Teamster web sites. Here are some more links for you to follow:

• View General President Jim Hoffa's message on breast cancer awareness.
• Read how Canadian Teamsters support this very important cause.
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure
• American Cancer Society

Back to top of page

 

IBT News Release:
HOFFA FEATURED IN THE NEWS

IBT President Jim Hoffa

(September 21, 2009) International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa is a frequent newsmaker. This week, he made the news more than usual. A Memorandum went out to all IBT Joint Councils, Local Unions and Principal Officers from IBT Director of Communications Bret Caldwell. He asked for our “communicative” help, and we’re glad to offer it on the Local 174 Website.

The message Bret sent out electronically, with its several links that are printed below, read:

“General President Jim Hoffa has been featured in recent news articles that we wanted to distribute and share. The General President was quoted by The New York Times and Wall Street Journal over the weekend about our opposition to the proposed taxation of health insurers, which will be passed on to consumers. He also was featured in the Cleveland Plain Dealer about our organizing campaign on the Continental ramp workers.”

Please read the stories, by following these links:

• Link to New York Times Story
• Link to Wall Street Journal Story
• Link to Cleveland Plain Dealer Story

Back to top of page

 

IBT News Release:
IBT CALLING WHOLE FOODS AND UNFI: YOU SHOULD SUPPORT HEALTH REFORM

(September 12, 2009) Oakland, CA – Today, the Teamsters protested at the “Entrepreneur's Open Forum” at the Numi Tea Garden to highlight Whole Food’s hypocrisy of claiming to support sustainable policies while its CEO lobbies against real health reform for its workers and customers. Executives from Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI) and its leading supplier United Natural Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq: UNFI) led discussions on “strategies for healthy business growth.”

The Whole Foods CEO, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, attacked President Obama's efforts to reform America's ailing health care system. Whole Foods believes that Americans have no right to health care and that health care should be an individual responsibility. That's easy for its CEO, who can afford expensive private health insurance, to say.

The Teamsters believe it is shameful for Whole Foods to seek to shift the health care burden even further onto individuals and to call for less government help in solving America’s health care crisis.

“Whole Foods’ CEO is talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to enacting real change in health reform,” said Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa. “We can’t allow corporate agendas to stop us from making health care affordable for everyone.”

The Teamsters call upon Whole Foods, and its principal supplier UNFI, to promote a sustainable organic food supply chain and sustainable jobs, and support our President’s efforts for a sustainable health care system for America.

Back to top of page

Teamsters News Link:
INFIGHTING IS BLUNTING LABOR’S CLOUT

New York Times
(September 8, 2009) This should be a renaissance for the American labor movement. Unions played a big role in electing President Barack Obama last year and supported more winning members of Congress than at any time in ages.

Moreover, labor should offer an antidote to any corporate greed and malfeasance. A sound economic expansion requires “benefits that are more broadly shared,” says Larry Summers, the top White House economic adviser, and that requires “a healthy and well-functioning trade union movement.”

Yet on this weekend devoted to American labor, the optimism of only a few months ago is fraying. Important legislative initiatives seem stalled and schisms persist among leading unions.

“Labor should not be written off,” says Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor and education research at Cornell University, “but labor has been hard hit by the economy, by a well-organized business opposition and by its own mistakes.”

Labor did see a small increase in membership last year, reversing a long decline. Still, only about 12.4 percent of American workers belong to unions, including 7.6 percent of private industry employees, about half the level of a quarter-century ago. The hopes for gains in organizing by more aggressive groups like the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have been partially thwarted by economic dislocations.

The overhaul of the health care system, a top organized labor priority for decades, is in perilous shape in Congress. Especially grating to some union officials was the outpouring of opposition during the August recess; by contrast, not many union workers, at least ones who support the health care revamp, showed up at the town hall meetings held nationwide.

Labor leaders insist it's not their members out there protesting and say the resistance is mostly political. “It's organized by the right-wing elements in this country,” charges the Teamsters president, James Hoffa. “The people out there screaming and yelling, do you think these people voted for Obama? Those are basically people that are challenging his right to be president.” Perhaps. Yet more than a few Democratic elected officials in Washington say that suggests all the passion is with the health care reform opponents and not with their union backers.

And while labor leaders share the same goal, there are differences over how to get there. Mr. Hoffa says establishing a government-run entity to compete with private health insurers isn't crucial for good legislation; Richard Trumka, likely to be the next president of the AFL-CIO, the main labor federation, says a bill without that so-called public option would be “useless.”

Labor's other priority, a measure making it easier to organize workers, which unions say is necessary after years of Republican administrative decisions favoring business, is also encountering resistance in the Senate, even from some Democrats. It remains to be seen whether, sometime later this year, a compromise can be crafted that is acceptable to unions and those wavering Democrats, as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, vows.

If labor fails on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, it would be a huge blow and it would likely produce internal and political recriminations.

Recalcitrant Democrats may pay a price in the next election, officials warn.

“Those people out there who say they're Democrats — and see our ideas and can't back us on something that's so basic as this — we're definitely scoring,” Mr. Hoffa said, adding that they saw this issue as a “litmus test.”

Some analysts wonder whether labor can be effective on both legislative and political matters when it is divided. Four years ago, seven unions, including the Service Employees, the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, broke from the AFL-CIO, which they said wasn't aggressive enough in organizing and on other matters. They formed the “Change to Win” coalition.

There are moves to get these factions back together so labor can present a more united front. A former Michigan congressman, David Bonior, has been tapped to try to reconcile some issues. It's a tough task.

Originally, it was thought unity might occur after the current AFL-CIO president, John Sweeney, stepped down. Mr. Sweeney and Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees, are enemies. The federation, however, has tapped Mr. Trumka, former head of the mine workers, to succeed Mr. Sweeney this month; his relations with Mr. Hoffa and some other Change to Win leaders are also said to be bad.

A few of the Change to Win unions, most importantly the United Food and Commercial Workers, might rejoin the old federation, and Change to Win is full of its own discord. But leaders like Mr. Stern and Mr. Hoffa say they have no intention of joining forces with their old adversaries.

“They're going to fail if they keep this fight going,” Professor Bronfenbrenner says.

Even some top AFL-CIO officials worry that she's right. “Labor unity would get us out of our comfort zone, which we can ill afford right now,” says the president of one major AFL-CIO union, who requested anonymity because of the friction.

Labor ultimately has to rely on the White House. The Obama administration has made some important administrative decisions, such as favoring federal contracts for firms that are unionized and making key appointments to the Labor Department and regulatory bodies that are far more labor-friendly than were the Republicans.

There are tensions, too. Unions wish the administration would push harder on the Employee Free Choice Act; Obama aides say health care comes first. And labor leaders are unhappy over what they see as the White House's coziness with Wall Street and the president's refusal to adopt a protectionist agenda.

There are Democratic politicians including Mr. Bonior and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, who could serve as a bridge over disagreements.

However, the most cohesive influence with all elements of labor — indeed, unions' leading political ally for decades — and with other Democrats was the recently deceased Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Back to top of page

Teamsters News Link:
EIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM

Washington Post
(September 8, 2009) President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday in an attempt to restart his push for reform. Obama has said he hopes to provide affordable coverage to every American while reining in medical spending over the long term. Democratic lawmakers, who return to Washington on Tuesday, have been wrestling with the issue for months but are far from agreement. Here's a look at some ideas being considered and the impact they might have.

#1 If I don't have health insurance now, how will reform affect me?
Under the proposals being considered, people without insurance will be required to get it. They will be able to buy coverage on a new "exchange," a marketplace in which private insurers will offer plans (possibly alongside a government-run option or a nonprofit cooperative). The government will subsidize the cost of plans, on a sliding scale, up to a certain income: Liberal Democrats want help extended to families earning as much as four times the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four); conservative Democrats want to limit help to families earning $66,000 or less. Plans offered on the exchange will have to comply with much stricter rules than those that exist in today's Wild West individual insurance market — prohibitions on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, limits on how much prices can be determined by people's ages, caps on out-of-pocket spending and limits on "rescissions," or the practice of voiding coverage based on technicalities after someone submits a big claim. Meanwhile, the poorest among the uninsured will probably be covered by expanded Medicaid eligibility.

#2 If I currently have health insurance, how will reform affect me?
Not that much, at least initially. The legislation is intended to preserve the existing employer-based insurance system -- at first, only small businesses and people who aren't covered through their jobs will be allowed to buy plans on the new exchange. Over time, access to the exchange may be broadened, though this raises the possibility that if people buy insurance on the exchange instead of on the job, employer plans may be left with a smaller pool of employees who have greater health-care costs, a situation that could make those plans hard to sustain. The Democrats' hope is that your employer-based insurance premiums will grow more slowly if the health-care system as a whole is more rational and less wasteful. People now covered by individual plans will be able to get better-regulated plans on the new exchange, possibly with government subsidies. People now covered in the workplace won't have to worry as much about losing coverage if they lose their job or want to start their own business -- they would turn to the exchange for new coverage.

#3 How much is reform likely to cost?
The price tag for covering the uninsured comes in around $1 trillion over the first 10 years, just under double what the new Medicare drug benefit was expected to cost. The proposals would pay for about half of this by squeezing money out of Medicare and Medicaid, including the subsidies that now go to private insurers that offer Medicare Advantage plans and the Medicaid payments that go to hospitals caring for a disproportionate share of the uninsured -- the hope is that more of these hospitals' patients would be covered after reform. Much of the remainder would be paid for through new tax revenue. House Democrats want an income tax surcharge on those earning more than $1 million, President Obama wants to reduce the itemized deductions for wealthy taxpayers, and moderate Senate Democrats have talked about taxing the most costly of employer-provided health plans. The cost of covering the uninsured is separate from the related question of how to "bend the curve" of the country's overall health-care spending. The goal is to achieve this by expanding "comparative effectiveness" research into what treatments work best, and by nudging health-care providers into models in which they work closely together and are paid on salaries, instead of charging for each procedure provided.

#4 How much does the federal government now spend on health care?

#5 What will happen to small businesses under health-care reform?
Small businesses now have a difficult time buying coverage for employees. They have a smaller pool of people to cover than large companies do, so coverage costs can soar if the workers tend to be older or if even one person happens to get very sick. The proposals seek to solve this problem by letting small businesses buy coverage on the new exchange, where their workers would be pooled together with all the other people on the exchange, spreading the risks more broadly. The proposals also include various tax credits to help small businesses obtain coverage. At the same time, the proposals require businesses of a certain size to provide coverage or pay a penalty. The House bill originally mandated that companies with a payroll of at least $250,000 offer insurance or pay a fine ranging from 2 to 8 percent of payroll depending on the company's size; conservative Blue Dog Democrats, however, demanded that companies with annual payrolls of $500,000 or less be exempt from any mandate. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill has a penalty of $750 per full-time worker and exempts firms with fewer than 25 employees. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a lesser penalty -- charging businesses the cost of subsidizing those employees who qualify for public assistance in getting their own coverage.

#6 I keep hearing about plans to create a "public option" or health insurance cooperatives. How would those work?
The House Democrats' plan and the Senate health committee's plan both would offer a new government-run insurance plan, or "public option," on the new exchange. People would buy it just as they would a private plan on the exchange: They would pay premiums, and if their income is low enough, they would get government subsidies to help cover the cost. It would be available only to those people allowed access to the exchange -- initially, small businesses and people without employer-based coverage. Under the initial House plan, the public plan would pay doctors and hospitals reimbursement rates 5 to 10 percent higher than Medicare reimbursement rates. The thinking is that this would make the plan competitively priced compared with private plans -- spurring them, it is hoped, to reduce their own prices -- while somewhat allaying the concerns of providers who say Medicare reimbursements are too low. Blue Dog Democrats in the House want the plan's reimbursement rates to be negotiated with each provider, instead of tied to Medicare, which would probably mean higher reimbursements and premiums. Moderate Senate Democrats opposed to a public option are considering creating nonprofit insurance cooperatives, which would be seeded with federal money but run by the people who belong to them, not the government. Supporters of the public option are questioning whether the co-ops would have enough heft to compete with private insurers.

#7 What is likely to happen to my Medicare coverage under current proposals?
The vast majority of benefits provided by Medicare to 45 million senior citizens and people with disabilities would not be changed. Under the House bills, premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage, known as Part D, would increase slightly. That increase would be offset by deep discounts on medications bought in the coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole."

Overall, the result would be lower out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs for most seniors, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Most of the bills Congress is considering would provide higher reimbursement to doctors, especially primary-care physicians. But hospitals and insurance companies that sell managed-care plans, called Medicare Advantage, would have lower-than-expected government payments.

Democrats initially included a provision to allow Medicare to reimburse physicians for end-of-life consultations. But false accusations that the provision would lead to government "death panels" have prompted lawmakers to rethink the idea.

#8 What do the current bills have in common, and what are the major legislative challenges that lie ahead?
Bills approved by the Senate health committee and three House panels are similar in many respects. All four versions would:

• Require every American to carry insurance, with discounts for people who cannot afford it and penalties for people who refuse to buy coverage.
• Require most employers to contribute to the cost of employee coverage or pay into a health fund, while small firms would be exempt or receive tax credits to reduce the price. 
Expand the Medicaid health program for the poor.
• Provide insurance discounts for people earning less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $73,000 for a family of three.
• Impose new restrictions on insurance practices, such as prohibiting the denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions.
• Create a new marketplace, dubbed an "exchange" or "gateway," for individuals and small businesses to comparison-shop for insurance.

The Senate Finance Committee has yet to release a bill but is circulating a more modest draft that would cost less than $900 billion over 10 years and provide smaller subsidies for purchasing insurance.

In the coming weeks, the three House versions will be merged into a single bill and brought to the floor for a vote. Any Senate Finance Committee bill would be merged with the health committee's version and sent to the floor. If both the House and the Senate approve bills, differences would be hammered out in a conference committee and sent to both chambers for final action.

Back to top of page