| March 2010 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Monday, March 15
Labor Update: What's in the Health Care Bill for Iowa Workers?
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 15 Mar 2010 05:00 AM CDT
Labor Update: What's in the Health Care Bill for Iowa Workers?
 by Tracy Kurowski
By this time next week, we could finally have a health care bill on President Obama’s desk.
I stress the word "could" because if we’ve learned anything in the past year, it is that no legislation is a sure thing. Speaker Pelosi, however, feels confident enough in her whip count that she is ready to schedule a vote by Friday or Saturday of this week.
Health care reform’s final passage will be a combination of asking members of the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill, while simultaneously passing a series of amendments dealing with the bill’s financing, that would then be volleyed back to the Senate to pass through a reconciliation process that only requires a simple majority of fifty-one votes. So long as the Senate is honestly gauging their whip count, by next Monday, rather than posting a blog, I’m just going to post clip art of champagne, balloons, confetti, smiley faces and dancing figures.
And now that we are at the end game, it’s important to resist the temptation to look back at this point and figure out why something like the desire to provide health care access to all of a nation’s citizens should have conjured up so much controversy. At an interfaith forum on health care reform late last year, two of the panelists rightly agreed that the debate we had been having throughout 2009 brought out more heat than light. But whatever compromises are in the final outcome, the significance of having passed a health care overhaul will mean an awful lot for both improving on the bill’s flaws as we move forward, as well as for moving any other legislation over the rest of Obama’s tenure as President.
So let me talk now about the parts of the bill that most affect labor. The forty percent excise tax on benefits in the Senate version stands out as the most egregious flaw of the bill. However, the version going through reconciliation would reduce the effect that will have on working families by eighty percent. The reconciled bill would delay implementation of the tax until 2018. This is only fair since implementing it any earlier would undermine the negotiated agreements currently in place – at the expense to both workers and employers. By delaying implementation until 2018, not only is there an opportunity to re-visit financing of the health care bill, but even if left untouched, the delay gives workers and employers the opportunity to negotiate future contracts based on the impact of such an enormous tax.
The reconciled bill also resets the excise tax threshold at $27,500 for family coverage and $10,200 for individual plans, exempting many working families. The threshold excludes vision and dental benefits and is adjusted higher if age and gender of workforce increases costs. Finally, the threshold will be adjusted if costs outpace projected increases.
Because these modifications reduce revenue from the excise tax from $116 billion to $33 billion over ten years, the reconciled version pays for reform by increasing the Medicare tax on tax payers earning over $200,000 (families over $250,000) per year. It would also for the first time put a Medicare tax on unearned income.
There is no employer mandate to provide coverage, but there will be penalties for employers with greater than fifty full-time employees. For employers in the building trades, the number being negotiated right now is five full-time employees and payroll of $250,000 or more. The penalty for employers not providing health care benefits is increased to $2000 per worker up from $750 in the current Senate version.
For retirees, the bill would get rid of the doughnut hole that hung seniors out to dry when it came to paying for their prescription costs.
The deal with Nebraska is gone (take that Blue-Dog Bill Nelson!) And by some accounts, there’s a chance for a public option to re-emerge.
It improves on federal funding to states to offset costs of Medicaid – currently a heavy burden for states and retains qualification for Medicaid for those up to 133% of poverty level. For moderate – income earners, the subsidy will be increased for individuals and families up to four times poverty level. It also puts a cap on out-of-pocket costs so illness won’t bankrupt families anymore. And for working families who are moderate to higher end wage earners, there are subsidies available so your premium for employer-provided coverage will never be more than 9.8% of income.
The bill permits states to establish a single-payer system for themselves – something people in progressive states may want to start work on at a much-smaller scale – remember women’s enfranchisement only happened after a critical mass of states already allowed women the right to vote.
The fight for comprehensive health care reform has gone on for decades. It’s absolutely senseless to toss out the current version because it fails to please everyone. The last time comprehensive health care reform was attempted was in 1992. If reform fails again, are we willing to wait until 2028 to revisit it? Compounding the current rate of health insurance premium increases – which were anywhere from ten to sixty percent this year – and you‘ll soon realize that doing nothing is not an option, that is unless you’re ok with becoming a third-world nation.
Tracy
Kurowski has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every
Monday on Blog for Iowa
Monday, March 1
Is Iowa A Corporate Welfare State?
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 01 Mar 2010 05:00 AM CST
Is Iowa A Corporate Welfare State?
by
Tracy Kurowski
"...the
State of Iowa ’s Economic Development Board celebrated their plan to
extend $6.5 million in forgivable loans so Whirlpool could expand its
Amana, Iowa plant, creating sixty jobs.
Link By my math, that’s $108,000 per
job that tax payers in Iowa will give to Whirlpool, a company whose 4th
quarter 2009 net income rose to $95 million from $44 million a year
earlier."
Link
On Friday, thousands of people demonstrated Evansville, Indiana, against Whirlpool’s announcement that it would close its refrigeration plant there, moving the jobs to Mexico. The first jobs are slated to be cut beginning March 26th, and when the plant is finally shuttered more than 1100 people will lose their jobs in this Southern Indiana town. As the ramifications of the closure begin to take their toll on the local economy, still hundreds more people will lose their jobs as a consequence.
The language companies like Whirlpool use to justify the havoc they wreak on a community is dry, corporate, without victim. Whirlpool is only doing this so they may “consolidate production within our existing North American manufacturing facilities.” The jobs were called “excess capacity.“
As a courtesy, they announced the closure last August as part of a “smooth” transition.
Workers were warned prior to the protest last Friday, that participating in it could, “hamper employees when they look for future jobs," according to Paul Coburn, Director of Operations at the Evansville Plant. The feigned concern is disturbing, not only because, quite obviously, the workers wouldn’t have to worry about seeking employment if managers like Paul Coburn had genuine concern, and sought out ways to keep the plant open. But it is problematic because it further places workers and governments in positions where they have to beg, plead and bribe corporations for jobs. Saying, “We fear that potential employers will view the actions of a few, and determine whether they would want to hire any of (the) Evansville division employees in the future,” Coburn puts a stain on their resumes for one day of practicing their first amendment rights against a ten, fifteen or twenty year career and loyalty to the company.
Just two states west of Indiana, the State of Iowa ’s Economic Development Board celebrated their plan to extend $6.5 million in forgivable loans so Whirlpool could expand its Amana, Iowa plant, creating sixty jobs. Link By my math, that’s $108,000 per job that tax payers in Iowa will give to Whirlpool, a company whose 4th quarter 2009 net income rose to $95 million from $44 million a year earlier. Link
Those profits, however, are made by cutting jobs at plants like the one in Evansville, Indiana. CNN reports, again in language that erases people and communities, that these profits are driven by “aggressive cost reductions…to bolster profits in the past four quarters.”
So, hoping to truly convince Whirlpool that it is profitable to expand in Amana , Iowa County will provide an additional $1.5 million grant for the project. We’re now up to $133,000 per job.
Now I’m not opposed to using public funds to help create or save jobs, but shouldn’t there be some sort of ethical measure for doing so? Should Iowa use its public money to woo a transnational corporation that is abandoning its responsibility to a community just two states east? What is the calculus used, measure for measure, when a company deserves even a penny of taxpayer dollars?
In the case of Whirlpool, according to its own spokespeople, it isn’t because they lack liquid capital or because they are broke. Dan Smith, VP of Whirlpool’s Amana division, admitted Whirlpool would have made the investments in Amana “regardless of whether it received the state and county money.” But he insinuated that closure in Amana in the future was not out of the picture. He said that the grant “gives the Amana division a chance to accelerate improvement and stay competitive against facilities in lower-cost countries.” Link
Shouldn’t Whirlpool’s pattern of abandoning its jobs in the Midwest be of some concern when public dollars are being spent? Is there anything in the language of the grants or forgivable loans that puts some guarantee of jobs in Iowa for the long run?
Shortly after Whirlpool bought the Maytag Corporation in 2006, it closed its Newton , Iowa facility causing 1800 jobs to be lost. Isn’t there anyone asking at what point does the public get to make demands on companies like Whirlpool for the public investment we make?
Certainly, Whirlpool has no shame in asking for public subsidies, even though they arrogantly claim they don’t need them. The company is also seeking a $500,000 grant from the Iowa Office of Energy Independence for the Amana project.
That makes $141,000 per job, for now.
Tracy
Kurowski has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every
Monday on Blog for Iowa
Monday, February 15
Labor Update: No More Politics As Usual
by
Trish Nelson
on Mon 15 Feb 2010 05:00 AM CST
Labor Update: No More Politics As Usual
 by Ken Sagar
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
That brilliant white-haired physicist, Albert Einstein said many things I do not understand, but I do understand that statement. I understand that some politicians have failed to provide the leadership and live up to promises for too long. I understand that a party that alleges to support workers and advance the middle class, uses the labor movement as an ATM, as a source of free campaign workers, as a strong back to carry them to victory, and a perceived weak mind that would not notice the huge disparity between promises and deliveries. Suffice to say, we have noticed.
The labor movement has changed our programs to be more efficient, to contact more, educate more and elect more supposed friends to move issues that are important to the middle class and to workers in general. It is hard to argue that we have not been successful.
What we have not changed is the unrealistic reliance on others to live up to their commitments and move progressive legislation forward. What we have not changed is our expectations that workers have the same rights as other citizens, or even corporations.
We need to change the “how” and “who” of the electoral process. We can no longer let others tell us what they will do for us, pick the candidates, set the agenda, or otherwise control our destiny. There are other ways to get the interests of workers and middle class.
What if we joined forces - workers, progressives, teachers, minorities, LGBT and other movements - stood together to elect workers and other progressives to entry level electoral positions? What if those who are tired of the current politicos, who only stand for re-election, supported friends and neighbors for local boards and councils to get a new generation of leaders who support progressive policies that help middle class Americans?
We the people have to get off our collective couches, turn off our TVs, and make a concerted effort to support each other. We can change the game if we can make the commitment to ourselves, our children and to each other. Working Iowa neighbors can change the game.
No more politics as usual.
Ken Sagar, President
Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
2000 Walker Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50317
515-262-9571 / 515-508-9916 cell
Tracy Kurowski will return next week.
Sunday, January 24
A Story of Jobs, Immigration and the Reagan Revolution in Iowa
by
paul deaton
on Sun 24 Jan 2010 05:00 AM CST
A Story of Jobs, Immigration and the Reagan Revolution in Iowa
 by Paul Deaton
Part One of a series on labor and immigration in Iowa
Because
of the complexity of the labor and immigration relationship, Blog for
Iowa will make regular posts on this issue during the coming
weeks.
The relationship between the decline in the number of jobs and immigration is easy to see in Iowa. The state continues to issue permits for workers to come from Mexico to pick melons and strawberries and prune apple trees and grape vines. These jobs have few benefits, but the hourly wage is competitive with factory work in urban centers like Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs and Sioux City. Many of the same Mexican workers come year after year to places like Conesville and Williamsburg, providing growers with a stable, well trained work force. Most of the money earned is paid through an intermediary, or “job broker” and immigrant workers take most, if not all of their earnings back to Mexico to support their extended families. We will know the Iowa economy is really hurting when someone makes an issue that these well paying, seasonal jobs should be going to Iowans.
Those of us who have worked in the meatpacking industry have witnessed the evolution of workforce in Iowa. I made $4.04 per hour when I worked at Oscar Mayer & Sons in Davenport during my summer break from college in 1971. At those wages, plus overtime, I was able to fund the entire following year of school expenses not paid by my scholarship from Oscar Mayer.
None of my high school friends had difficulty finding factory work that summer if they wanted it, as Davenport was a manufacturing center, and Case, International Harvester, John Deere and many other businesses needed summer help.
My co-workers at Oscar Mayer were people much like my parents: union members and living a reasonable life with their pay and benefits. Even though Iowa is a right to work state, when given the choice at my hiring event, we all joined the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America Local 431.
There were a few Hispanic workers and they were friends and seemed no different from the rest of us, trying to meet our economic needs. In a nation of immigrants, working for a family business, a lot of Oscar Mayer’s workers’ families had immigrated before the 20th century.
We hear a lot these days about the Reagan revolution. During the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president, there was a transformation of American business and the meatpacking industry was part of this. This transformation was particularly hard on working families, as companies grew and consolidated their operations.
Meatpacking continued to require a local workforce, but large operators like Iowa Beef Processors were building very large slaughter operations in Western Iowa and in South Dakota. Eventually, slaughter operations for cattle and hogs were consolidated. The plant where I had worked in college later eliminated the kill floor and used swinging (transported by truck on meat hooks) and boxed animal carcasses to make Oscar Mayer products with a reduced workforce.
With the Reagan revolution began the exodus of United States jobs to Mexico and overseas, where labor was less expensive and there was less government regulation. This era saw the rise in large, international conglomerates that evaluated costs of production in a global paradigm. What began with the departure of jobs from the United States during the Reagan administration continues today.
In Iowa, the meatpacking industry continued its consolidation throughout the 1980s and eventually large operators had trouble locating an adequate workforce, despite an overall exodus of jobs. The work had not changed, but the pay and benefits had. This gave rise to the immigrant worker issues that are so often associated with the towns Dakota City, Postville, Sioux City, Council Bluffs and Marshalltown. (...to be continued...).
We hope you will read the second post on this timely and
important issue next Sunday.
~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County. Check
out his blog, Big Grove Garden.
E-mail Paul Deaton
Tuesday, January 19
Report on SEIU/Change That Works Health Care Affordability Summit
by
Caroline Vernon
on Tue 19 Jan 2010 01:56 AM CST
Report on SEIU/Change That Works
Health Care Affordability Summit
By Caroline Vernon
Washington, DC - On January 13th, SEIU/Change That Works and health care reform coalition partners mobilized labor members and health care advocates from across the country for a national day of action, calling on legislators to adopt 3 essential aspects of the House & Senate bills; The 3 A’s: Affordability, Accessibility, and Accountability.
Before a crowd of 150, many pro-reform legislators spoke passionately about the need to make health care more affordable, as the conference committee decides the fate of meaningful health care legislation.
Everyone in attendance agreed, our #1 priority should be making real reform affordable for working families and setting premiums and out-of-pocket costs at levels that are fair and reasonable. Adequate subsidies are seen to be essential to the fundamental goal of guaranteeing quality affordable health care to all Americans. SEIU and coalition partners, PICO, Families USA, and other community groups called on legislators and the Obama administration to adopt the following 5 components of the House & Senate bills:
• The safety net for the most vulnerable in our communities is stronger in the House through an expansion of Medicaid to those making 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or less.
• The House bill offers lower premiums and caps out-of pocket costs at levels that lower income families earning less than 250% of the FPL (less than $41,000 for a family of 3) can better afford.
• The Senate bill makes care more affordable for families who are between 250% and 400% of the FPL.
• The House surtax impacting only the wealthiest Americans, is more favorable than the Senate’s excise tax that would adversely impact millions of middle class families, resulting in benefit cuts, increasing premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
• The House approach to ensuring employers share responsibility and contribute to the coverage of part time workers. If not, employers will have a strong incentive to reduce the number of hours for full time workers so they are not penalized for not offering coverage – there must be accountability.
Reformers also advocated on behalf of seniors having expanded access to affordable medications by closing the gap or “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage.
Overall, the House bill makes coverage much more affordable for working families. To give you an example of the difference, a single worker earning only $17,500 per year will pay 16% of their annual income for health insurance ($2,801) under the Senate bill, while paying only 8% ($1,416) of their annual income for insurance under the House bill – a very substantial difference. Additionally, under provisions found in the Senate bill, a low income family of 3 that earns $41,000 a year would pay an annual average of $7,000 or 17% of their annual income on healthcare; $2,134 more than under the House bill. The same family could pay a maximum of $9,000 a year on healthcare; $2,175 more than the maximum under HR 3962.
SEIU members who were interviewed during the day of national action spoke about why they and their families need affordable, comprehensive coverage as a part of reform. Their personal accounts are truly moving. Watch it here.
Some of the Congressmen and women who spoke at the Health Care Affordability Summit included, Congressman Ensign from New York, Donna Edwards from Maryland, Christopher Murphy and Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, and Congressman Dingle from Michigan who put the fight for health care justice in historical perspective by reminding us, the fight to enact Social Security and Medicare in this country was as intense and controversial as our current struggle to pass meaningful health care reform legislation in 2010. Congressman Dingle, has been a member of Congress for 54 years.
After the summit, advocates lobbied their members of congress on affordability. SEIU Iowa President, Cathy Glasson, and I had an opportunity to meet with Congressmen Loebsack and Braley who both said they were in agreement and supported adopting the 5 key components we had outlined from the House and Senate bills that would make health care more affordable. Both Congressmen indicated they had met with President Obama just the day before to discuss compromises in the House and Senate bills. When we addressed the issue of favoring the House surtax over the Senate’s excise tax as a funding mechanism, both congressmen expressed disappointment that the president was “bent” on adopting the Senate’s version which would place the burden on working families rather than the wealthiest Americans. As you may recall, this is NOT what Obama campaigned on.
Since our visit, we know organized labor has fought for acceptable compromises which would tax cadillac plans costing over $8,900 rather than $8,000 as outlined in the Senate bill.
I also addressed the need to fix the 2 year waiting list for individuals who qualify for Social Security Disability with our Iowa congressmen. As it stands today, recipients are told they must wait 2 years before becoming eligible for Medicare. This is nothing short of cruel. Why would anyone deny disabled individuals access to healthcare? I have to wonder, what was Congress thinking? Why would anyone intentionally withhold health care from people who have met all the many difficult requirements to demonstrate they have a serious medical need which resulted in disability? Is it their hope that folks will just die off or what? Do they not understand what kind of impact this has on people’s lives or the amount of damage that can ensue if a chronic condition goes untreated for 2 years? Neither the House or Senate bill addresses this issue. I ask you to please raise your voice and advocate on behalf of these individuals who arguably have the greatest need for care.
Congressman Braley also shared with us his concerns that pro-reform advocates have not countered the “tea baggers” or anti-reform protestors who he and others see everyday on the steps of the Capitol and outside House and Senate offices. Unfortunately, they also garner ALL of the media’s attention, since there is no “visual” pro-reform presence on the Hill. Congressman Braley expressed frustration over the fact that progressives and pro-reform advocates have not mobilized a massive demonstration and show of support for health care reform, countering anti-reformer claims that they are in the majority.
I know there are so many of you who have worked long and hard on meaningful health care reform but NOW is the time to step up the pressure on our elected leaders and hold them to their word -- that includes President Obama. I believe it is also long past time to demonstrate a massive show of support for our elected leaders who continue to work hard for health care reform on behalf of ALL Americans.
I call on organized labor, people of faith, community groups, grassroots organizations, and all other health care advocates to come together and organize/mobilize a Health Care for All March on Washington this Spring; if meaningful legislation is already passed, we can thank our leaders for making it happen, if not, we can address what we need in order to ensure meaningful health care reform. Either way, it’s a win-win and an opportunity to show media pundits and the American people that WE ARE the majority of Americans who overwhelmingly voted for CHANGE in November of 2008. So far, it’s been politics as usual. We need a change we really can believe in…
What do we need? HEALTH CARE! When do we need it? NOW!!!
Monday, December 21
Labor Leaders Stunned at Latest Health Care Compromise
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 21 Dec 2009 05:00 AM CST
Labor Leaders Stunned at Latest Health Care Compromise
by Tracy Kurowski
Last week, Senator Harry Reid revealed the latest compromise on a health care reform bill.
- No public option
- No expansion of Medicare to seniors and retirees age 55 +
- Permits annual caps on benefits so long as they are not “unreasonable” The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
- Mandates that all Americans buy insurance by 2014 or be fined
- Retains premium-setting based on age as high as four times the rate for younger people
- Preserves bans on drug importation
- Inclusion of state option to ban abortion coverage in health insurance exchanges
- 40% excise tax on plans worth more than $8,500 per year for individuals and $23,000 for families
Most labor leaders are stunned – not wanting to publicly defame the only real chance at health care reform or cast stones at the very people whose support they need to move forward on labor reform they hope to get to early next year – but privately they must be reeling at what has become a bill with as many – and possibly more - negatives as positives for working people.
The enormous 40% excise tax on health care benefits is probably the most offensive to organized labor which has negotiated long and hard for health care coverage, and in recent years, by sacrificing wages and other benefits to maintain their health care coverage. Democrats defend the tax claiming that it will only affect executives and others who chose to purchase “Cadillac” plans. But under the current version of the Senate bill, one third of workers with employer-provided health coverage would be affected by the proposed excise tax. In later years, even more workers would be affected as their premiums increase at a faster pace than the tax threshold gets adjusted.
The proposal also hits workers who live in rural areas with little to no competition among insurers, and consequently pay up to 30% higher than average costs. Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, miners and building trades, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems.
If implemented, the proposed excise tax could effectively decrease health care coverage by establishing a system by which employers and workers devalue their health care to avoid paying the added tax.
Workers negotiating health care benefits may not even have the opportunity to water down benefits to control costs in some circumstances. According to the actuarial consulting firm Milliman, “whether someone hits the excise tax ceiling is not so much driven by benefit richness as it is by age, gender, profession, health status and the geography of the covered population.”
Characterizing the Senate’s tax on benefits as a shell game, Donna Smith, legislative advocate for the California Nurses Association condemns the proposal, "What it looks like is that most of these excise taxes may cause employers to drop level of coverage for workers. You'd be buying a lower-cost policy with higher out of pockets costs for workers. That's not cost-cutting, that’s cost-shifting."
Labor leaders called an emergency meeting last Wednesday night after the Senate compromise was revealed. Aids described the meeting as emotional, which is not surprising given how much time, effort and money labor unions have poured into the fight for reform over the past year.
After the meeting’s conclusion, they seem united in accepting the Senate’s capitulation to the insurance industry and refocused their fight on the version of the bill already passed out of the House.
Trumka called the Senate bill “inadequate” and declared the fight continues to re-work the bill once it reaches conference committee. In a statement meant to caution the Democrats from accepting too many of the Senate’s compromises, Trumka did note that there will be political ramifications, "If you tax the benefits of workers so that they have less health care," Trumka said, "I would expect them to consider that when voting."
SEIU President Andy Stern concurred with Trumka on passing the bill despite its inadequacies. "It's time for the Senate to send this bill on to conference where the real work will be done. We've come too far, America's waited too long, to turn back now." But in respect to the public option, Stern recognized that bills in conference usually get watered down rather than gussied up, "It's hard to imagine it getting better in conference."
Leo Gerard, President of the United Steel Workers had much harsher words for the bill the following day on the Ed Schulz Show. Girard said President Obama “got Hoodwinked “ by the insurance industry and also predicts dire political consequences if the Democrats settle for the current Senate bill, “I can tell you this — point blank — if we don’t get a meaningful health care bill that reduces costs and has everybody in and doesn’t have an excise tax, has a pay or play for employers, has a public option, or a medicare buy-in, we’re not gonna campaign for any Democrat that voted against this bill, and we’re going to go out and try and defeat them.” "We need to fight for what's right for the country and by fighting for what's right for the country, we'll do what's right for people," Gerard said. "I'm angry as hell."
In the final evaluation, the line in the sand for labor leaders will be whether or not the conference committee bill includes the excise tax on health care benefits. If our benefits are taxed without the benefit of Medicare expansion for retirees, or a public option to keep costs down, you can count on the leadership to oppose the bill. Opposition means they, like the National Organization for Women has already decided to do, actively lobby their representatives and senators to vote it down, and if their elected leaders, however grudgingly, still vote in favor, to have a lot of explaining to do when they ask for labor’s support, money and door knockers in the mid-term elections.
For more information on how the tax hurts workers, go to:
Economic Policy Institute Citizens for Tax Justice Watson Wyatt Report
Tracy
Kurowski is currently AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison at the United
Way of the Quad City Area. She has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for Iowa
**BFIA ACTION ALERT**
Let's not forget about one Iowan in particular who bears responsibility for the watering down of health care reform, and who we can actually do something about next year. If we do not send Grassley home when we have the chance, we all bear responsibility for what he may do next.
Get involved in un-electing Grassley. Check out the websites of the Democratic challengers, Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen, Bob Krause
Monday, December 14
President Obama Reverses Bush Anti-Labor Policies; Jobs Still Needed
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 14 Dec 2009 05:00 AM CST
President Obama Reverses Bush Anti-Labor Policies; Jobs Still Needed
 by Tracy Kurowski
As I reflect on President Obama’s first year in office, it’s difficult for me to not think about the painful chapter on post-Apartheid South Africa in Naomi Klein’s book analyzing neo-liberal economic policies, The Shock Doctrine.
After Nelson Mandela’s historic victory in abolishing Apartheid, the South African nation and world are in a euphoric state, high on the realization that yes we can prevail over the entrenched racism and colonialism that had been oppressing the aboriginal peoples of the African continent for half a millennia.
However, in the re-building of the South African nation’s socio-economic infrastructure, something went awry. While finally the majority population of black South Africans could now vote and enjoy for the first time many of the rights of citizenry - a policy shift led by Mandela’s election sweep in 1994 and lauded in the press the world over – the economic plan for the country remained in the same hands of the powerful white elite that had ruled the country for decades. And in crushing irony, a decade after Apartheid’s end, by 2005 “economically, South Africa has surpassed Brazil as the most unequal society in the world.” (1)
Yes, I am still thankful for Obama’s historic victory, and yes, I recognize that one cannot undue decades of financial deregulation and labor losses in just one year. I know there is no magic wand to fix the system, that Obama did not cause the financial meltdown. I recall that Obama did sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as his first piece of legislation. He appointed Hilda Solis Doyle as his very labor-friendly Secretary of Labor. And he reversed many of Bush’s anti-labor policies with Executive Orders signed almost immediately after taking office. (5) Yes, there is much to be thankful for.
I also appreciate what must be Obama’s frustration at dealing with a speak – softly Democratic caucus but a carry a big stick Republican caucus in Congress.
Yet I must express my astonishment at comments made by Obama at the December 3rd Jobs Summit which included 130 leaders from both the business community and labor, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
The AFL-CIO and liberal think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute have suggested that, among other things, what we need to do to provide direct relief to the nation’s millions of unemployed workers is a government jobs program similar to the Works Progress Administration from the 1930’s. That is, if the private sector cannot guarantee jobs, the government must.
This is no foreign concept after all. President Roosevelt’s New Deal of 1935 created 21 million jobs over seven years in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Many of our nation’s roads, bridges, schools, parks and post offices were created by this venture. We did this at a total cost of $160 billion in today’s dollars. (2)
Obama listened to the concerns of Labor and said that while he appreciates the need for federal investment to fight the nation's high unemployment, private business, not government, must lead future job growth. "Ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector." (3)
While I agree that it is the private sector which has historically driven job creation, I find Obama’s use of the word “only” in that statement extremely problematic.
In the course of the past year we have witnessed a government ready, willing and able to do all it can to bail out its banks despite their eponymous failures and bonus blunders. Citibank alone has been guaranteed protection of upwards of $277 billion in losses from its toxic assets. Lots of money to you and me but chump change compared to the $23.7 trillion that Neil Barofsky, the inspector general charged with overseeing TARP, estimates the total cost of Wall Street bailouts to eventually reach. (4)
Obama agreed in theory with point five of the AFL-CIO’s five-point program for job creation, that “we should put some of the billions of dollars in leftover Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to work creating jobs by enabling community banks to lend money to small- and medium-size businesses. If small businesses can get credit, they will create jobs.” (6)
But the administration has been firm in saying it will not spend TARP money – nor for that matter any other funding mechanism – directly on the job-creation, “"Let me be clear, I am open to every demonstrably good idea. And I want to take every responsible step to accelerate job creation. We also though have to face the fact that our resources are limited," Obama said (7)
That Obama suggests our government no longer has the funds to directly create jobs may appease fiscally-conservative critics, but it’s an insult to workers who are already on the hook for a bank bailout that New York University Nouriel Roubini famously characterized as “socializing risk and privatizing gain.” (8)
According to the Economic Policy Institute, to fill in the gap of job loss over the next two years, the private sector would have to create 583,000 new jobs every month over the next two years. (9) This number is far greater than the 127,000 that Obama’s own Department of Labor predicts will be created each month over the next ten years. (10)
My hope is that in Obama’s second year in office, he replaces his Clinton-era Treasury Department officials with a new slate of advisors like the ones he had during his campaign. To better understand what is taking place in Treasury, I suggest reading Matt Tiabbi’s excellent piece on Obama’s Treasury Department “Obama’s Big Sellout.” My favorite quote, the page on which I also hope some young intern leaves open on Obama’s coffee table is this: “Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants. ”Bob Rubin, these guys, they're classic limousine liberals," says David Sirota, a former Democratic strategist. "These are basically people who have made shitloads of money in the speculative economy, but they want to call themselves good Democrats because they're willing to give a little more to the poor. That's the model for this Democratic Party: Let the rich do their thing, but give a fraction more to everyone else."
Tracy
Kurowski is currently AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison at the United
Way of the Quad City Area. She has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for Iowa
Monday, November 9
President Obama Signs Unemployment Insurance Extension – Economy Still Slumps
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 09 Nov 2009 05:00 AM CST
President Obama Signs Unemployment Insurance Extension – Economy Still Slumps
 by Tracy Kurowski
On Friday, November 6, 2009, President Obama signed an extension of unemployment benefits for the nation’s 15.7 million unemployed workers.
While great news for the 600,000 unemployed who have exhausted their benefits, the need for the unemployment insurance extension represents an economy that is still far from recovery.
The legislation was signed on the same day that the Department of Labor released their latest figures on unemployment. Even though the rate of newly unemployed has slowed down, the national unemployment rate for October 2009 has increased to 10.2%, the highest it’s been in 26 years (since April 1983). Many of those out-of-work people are chronically unemployed – 35.6% of the total are persons who have remained jobless for 27 weeks or more.
Iowa’s unemployment rate of 6.3% qualifies its unemployed workers for up to 14 additional weeks of unemployment benefits. This is below the 8.5% threshold that would have extended benefits for 20 additional weeks (Illinois and 25 other states fall into this category).
The extension of benefits was passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate. It seems the even our politicians recognize the dire situation of our economy despite the proclamations in the business sections of our nation’s newspapers that have declared the recession over. The extended benefits signify that total assistance for many of our nation’s unemployed workers will be nearly two years – the longest period of unemployment benefits in our nation’s history.
Though the pace of the loss of jobs has slowed, the creation of new jobs still lags, let alone good jobs comparable to the ones lost. But one positive sign of growth, however, is in the health care sector which added 29,000 jobs in October. Since the start of the recession, health care has added 597,000 jobs. Manufacturers also reported an increase in jobs for the first time in 15 months in October, but these were mostly temporary workers or recalls of laid-off workers.
Unfortunately, the Department of Labor reports that the biggest increases in new jobs for October was in temporary help services which added 34,000 jobs in October.
In addition to the 26 year high in the unemployment rate, the actual number of people willing to work but who cannot find work is much higher.
The underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers, the jobless and those who have given up on searching, was 17.5 percent in October — the highest level since at least 1994.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, there are six workers for every single job opening in the country. Altogether there are more than 25 million Americans – one in six workers who are either out of work or in a dead-end, part time job they’ve had to accept in lieu of a real job.
Sources: The New York Times, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute
Tracy
Kurowski is currently AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison at the United
Way of the Quad City Area. She has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for Iowa
|
|
