Justin's Political Corner
Our thoughts and prayers are with Boston. We salute all of the EMS workers who rush in when others are rushing away.
WASHINGTON (AP) — It seems like a simple proposition: give employees who work more than 40 hours a week the option of taking paid time off instead of overtime pay.
The choice already exists in the public sector. Federal and state workers can save earned time off and use it weeks or even months later to attend a parent-teacher conference, care for an elderly parent or deal with home repairs.
Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would extend that option to the private sector. They say that would bring more flexibility to the workplace and help workers better balance family and career.
The push is part of a broader Republican agenda undertaken by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to expand the party’s political appeal to working families. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week, but the Democratic-controlled Senate isn’t likely to take it up.
“For some people, time is more valuable than the cash that would be accrued in overtime,” said Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., the bill’s chief sponsor. “Why should public-sector employees be given a benefit and the private sector be left out?”
But the idea Republicans promote as “pro-worker” is vigorously opposed by worker advocacy groups, labor unions and most Democrats. These opponents claim it’s really a backdoor way for businesses to skimp on overtime pay.
Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Families, contends the measure would open the door for employers to pressure workers into taking compensatory time off instead of overtime pay.
The program was created in the public sector in 1985 to save federal, state and local governments money, not to give workers greater flexibility, Lichtman said. Many workers in federal and state government are unionized or have civil service protections that give them more leverage in dealing with supervisors, she added. Those safeguards don’t always exist in the private sector, where only about 6.6 percent of employees are union members.
Republicans and business groups have tried to pass the plan in some form since the 1990s.
Democrats say the bill provides no guarantee that workers would be able to take the time off when they want. The bill gives employers discretion over whether to grant a specific request to use comp time. Opponents also complain that banking leave time essentially gives employers an interest-free loan from workers.
h/t: TPM
Lochner v. New York is widely viewed as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history. It is taught in law schools, alongside decisions upholding segregation and permitting Japanese detention camps, in order to instruct budding lawyers on how judges should not behave. Even Robert Bork, the failed, right-wing Supreme Court nominee who claimed women “aren’t discriminated against anymore”, called Lochner an “abomination” that “lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.”
Lochner fabricated a so-called right to contract in order to strike down a New York law preventing bakery owners from overworking bakers, but its rationale has implications for any law intended to shield workers from exploitation. In essence, Lochner established that any law that limits any contract between an employer and an employee is constitutionally suspect. If desperation forces someone to agree to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for a dollar a day in a factory filled with toxic air, then courts must treat that law with heavy skepticism. Not every workplace law was struck down during the so-called Lochner Era — the justices of that era sometimes valued sexism more than they valued exploiting workers, for example — but Lochner placed any law benefiting workers on constitutionally weak footing. Needless to say, the “right to contract” it invented appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took several minutes out of his lengthy talking filibuster yesterday to praise this “abomination” of a decision on the Senate floor:
You get to the Lochner case. The Lochner case is in 1905. The majority rules 5-4 that the right to make a contract is part of your due process. Someone cannot deprive you of determining how long your working hours are without due process. So President Obama’s a big opponent to this, but I would ask him — among the other things I’m asking him today — to rethink the Lochner case… . I think it’s a wonderful decision.
Paul’s speech also includes a somewhat rambling attempt to claim that Lochner helped “end Jim Crow,” a claim that would cause anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of civil rights history to scratch their head. Lochner was decided in 1905, and, while Paul is correct that the Lochner Era justices very occasionally struck down discriminatory laws, Jim Crow was still very much alive when Lochner was overruled in the 1930s. The Supreme Court decision that did the most to eradicate Jim Crow — Brown v. Board of Education — rested on the Constitution’s guarantee that no person shall be denied the “the equal protection of the laws,” not on some fabricated right to contract. And Brown alone was insufficient to overcome the campaign of “massive resistance” segregationists mounted in defense of Jim Crow.
What finally killed American apartheid was big, centralized government of the kind Paul and his fellow tea partiers love to hate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 required business owners to contract with minorities — something that would undoubtedly been unconstitutional under Lochner. And, of course, the same Voting Rights Act that is now endangered in the Supreme Court tore down Jim Crown voter exclusions. Sen. Paul, for his part, has incorrectly suggested that the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution.
Paul’s endorsement of Lochner reflects a disturbing evolution in Tea Party thought. For much of Obama’s first term, Tea Party conservatives rallied behind “tentherism,” the false belief that most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. Unlike tentherism, which applies only to federal laws, Lochnerism prevents both the federal government and the states from enacting necessary legislation.
“Wonderful decision” my ass, Rand!
Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through so-called “right to work” laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. By many measures, the quality of life is worse in states with “right to work” laws. Wages are lower, poverty and lack of insurance are higher, education is weaker—even infant mortality and the likelihood of being killed on the job are higher.
Lower Wages and Incomes
- The average worker in states with “right to work” laws makes $1,540 a year less when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.1
- Median household income in states with these laws is $6,437 less than in other states ($46,402 vs. $52,839).2
- In states with “right to work” laws, 26.7 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 19.5 percent of jobs in other states.3
Less Job-Based Health Insurance Coverage
- People in states with “right to work” laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.8 percent, compared with 13.1 percent overall; among children, it’s 10.8 percent vs. 7.5 percent).4
- They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (56.2 percent, compared with 60.1 percent).5
- Only 50.7 percent of employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 55.2 percent in other states. That difference is even more significant among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 34.4 percent of them offer workers health insurance, compared with 41.7 percent of small employers in other states.6
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
- Poverty rates are higher in states with “right to work” laws (15.3 percent overall and 21.5 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.1 percent for children in states without these laws.7
- The infant mortality rate is 15 percent higher in states with these laws.8
Less Investment in Education
- States with “right to work” laws spend $3,392 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states, and students are less likely to be performing at their appropriate grade level in math and reading.9
Higher Rates of Death on the Job
- The rate of workplace deaths is 36 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.10
H/T: AFL-CIO.org
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) yesterday backtracked on his previous assertion that a union-busting move to pass a so-called “right-to-work” provision into law wasn’t on his agenda, and by the end of the day, both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan state Senate had introduced and passed separate pieces of legislation aimed at the state’s union workforce.
Michigan Republicans are pursuing the laws because Indiana Republicans passed “right-to-work” last year and, according to Snyder, the state needs such a law to remain competitive. In reality, though, such laws have negative effects on workers and little effect on economic growth, and Michigan Republicans are pursuing the laws without public debate:
The legislation: Both the state House and state Senate passed legislation yesterday that prohibits private sector unions from requiring members to pay dues. The Senate followed by immediately passing a law that extends the same prohibition for public sector unions, though firefighters and police officers are exempt. The state House included a budget appropriations measure that is intended to prevent the state’s voters from being able to legally challenge the law through a ballot referendum. Due to state law, both houses are prevented from voting on legislation passed by the other for five days, so neither will be able to fully pass the legislation until Tuesday at the earliest.
The process: Union leaders and Democrats claim that Republicans are pushing the legislation through in the lame-duck session to hide the intent of the measures from citizens, and because the legislation would face more trouble after the new House convenes in January. Michigan Republicans hold a 63-47 advantage in the state House, but Democrats narrowed the GOP majority to just eight seats in November. Six Republicans opposed the House measure; five of them won re-election in 2012 (the sixth retired). And Michigan Republicans have good reason to pursue the laws without public debate. Though the state’s voters are evenly split on whether it should become a right-to-work state, 78 percent of voters said the legislature “should focus on issues like creating jobs and improving education, and not changing state laws or rules that would impact unions or make further changes in collective bargaining.”
The effect: While Snyder and Republicans pitched “right-to-work” as a pro-worker move aimed at improving the economy, studies show such legislation can cost workers money. The Economic Policy Institute found that right-to-work laws cost all workers, union and otherwise, $1,500 a year in wages and that they make it harder for workers to obtain pensions and health coverage. “If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress wrote earlier this year. And right-to-work laws and the drop in union membership that follows have a significant impact on the middle class. Multiple studies, meanwhile, show that such laws have a negligible impact on economic growth. “Research shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth,” EPI wrote in a recent report about Michigan. And “right-to-work” laws alsodecrease worker safety and can hurt small businesses.
Union leaders are, of course, aghast at Snyder and the GOP’s right-to-work push.
LANSING — The Michigan House and Senate each passed controversial right-to-work legislation today, amid loud protests and a walkout by Democratic legislators.
The state House passed the first right-to-work bill late this afternoon in a 58-52 vote, but that bill can’t move on to the Senate until the next session day — possibly Friday, if a session is scheduled — because of a procedural move by Democrats who are asking that the vote be reconsidered. The state Senate voted 22-16 to pass a right-to-work bill. Four Republicans — Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights, Tom Casperson of Escanaba, Mike Nofs of Battle Creek and Mike Green of Mayville — joined with all the Democrats in opposing the bill.
The House and Senate bills are two of three separate right-to-work bills now in the Legislature that will eventually be consolidated into two bills. Both the House and Senate bills deal with private sector employees. The third bill deals with public sector employees, excluding police and firefighters.
That bill passed the Senate by a 22-4 vote this evening.
Democrats in the Senate walked out of the chamber before the vote was taken.
The mishmash of bills is creating head-crashing possibilities over when any of it will make it to the governor’s desk.
The quickest the Legislature can now pass the right-to-work bills through both chambers and send them on to Gov. Rick Snyder is five days from the next sitting, or session day, said Ari Adler, a spokesman for House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall. The next session day could be set for Friday, a day this weekend or Tuesday, Adler said. The five-day clock then starts after that.
The House vote on the bill followed a brief walkout by Democrats to protest refusal by police officials to open the Capitol doors. Right-to-work legislation was introduced in the state House just before 3 p.m., bringing loud protests from Democrats and protesters inside the Capitol building.
“You’re doing this in lame duck because you know next session, you won’t have the votes,” said state Rep. Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids. “This is an outrage.”
Sen. John Gleason, D-Flint, said it was a “shameful day” in the state Legislature when a bill is allowed to be rammed through with no public hearings.
Democratic senators offered amendments to the bill that would: delay the implementation of the bill for one year; put the issue up to a vote of the people; remove an appropriation from the bill that would make the bill one that couldn’t be up for a repeal by voters, and tie the bill to repeals of same-sex benefits for the partners of state workers, the item pricing bill and the tax on retiree pensions. All failed.
“Here we are, less than a month after the election, and the choice voters made at the ballot box shows that voters don’t want this type of divisive agenda,” said Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing.
Snyder said at a news conference today that the bill is about freedom to choose and equality for Michigan workers.
h/t: Detroit Free Press
After insisting all last year that an anti-labor “right-to-work” law was not on his agenda, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has changed his mind. This morning, he called on the state legislature to introduce and pass so-called “right-to-work” legislation and promised to sign it should it reach his desk.
Snyder was among the Midwestern Republican governors who leveled an assault on unions in 2011, but right-to-work, which effectively undermines union activities by allowing non-union workers to free-ride on union-negotiated contracts, is a new front in that fight. Indiana passed right-to-work legislation earlier this year, and by following suit, Michigan can remain competitive with its neighbor while also becoming a better place for workers, Snyder claimed in a video posted by The Detroit News:
Though Snyder refers to his agenda as “pro-worker,” a quick glance at studies of “right-to-work” legislation paints a different picture. According to the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws have virtually no impact on job growth and have a negative impact on both union and nonunion workers, reducing wages by up to $1,500 a year. A Ball State University study conducted during Indiana’s push to pass right-to-work found that “no impact is likely” for job growth or wages in the manufacturing sector. Another EPI study suggests that right-to-work laws had a negative impact on Oklahoma’s economy and that right-to-work is “is ineffective as a strategy for increasing a state’s employment.”
The right-to-work experiment failed miserably the last time it was tried in the Midwest. Indiana originally passed right-to-work laws in 1957, but workers hated the new laws so much that they were repealed just eight years later.
In an email to HuffPost, Dawn Bess in Missouri writes:
“No one is striking here. Missouri is an ‘at will’ employment state and the employers pay the unemployment insurance. It no longer is deducted from our paychecks like it was 5 or 10 years ago, so if you are fired in Missouri for ANY reason that your employer can conjure up, the state denies us unemployment compensation. We can file a protest but the state always takes the employer’s side and we lose. It’s a horrible situation here in Missouri and everyone is terrified of losing their jobs for any reason because the state has no qualms about leaving us penniless and homeless. There is no security net in MO for workers who lose their job. So short of the long, no, there are no strikes here.”
Alexander Eichler
Rush Limbaugh is blaming President Obama for the fact that Hostess could not come to an agreement with its striking employees and decided lay off 18,500 employees by closing the plant. In Limbaugh’s mind, Obama has Twinkie blood on his hands.
Transcript from Rush Limbaugh:
Rush Limbaugh: Look, here I’m already being asked, “Are you gonna talk about Hostess?” Yeah, I’m gonna talk about Hostess. You know what, 18,500 people gone, Hostess Twinkies, Ding Dongs, shut down. Some people might think it’s a buy opportunity if you want to get in the Ding Dong business. But folks, if you need an indication that the Democrats will never compromise on anything, look at this. Hostess is going out of business because of unions. Now, that’s 18,500 jobs. You would think in this economy that somebody might want to show the ability to compromise if only to fool people. They won’t even compromise on this.
Unions are the Democrat Party. Trumka is at the White House again today. Won’t even compromise to save 18,500 jobs. Are you kidding me? Obama couldn’t step in here even for the optics of it? I mean, yesterday he saved New York. Today he could save Ding Dongs. He could save Twinkies, except at the White House Michelle’s probably celebrating, ’cause this is just rotten, no good food to her. But, see, I think they wanted this, folks. I think they wanted Hostess bye-bye. And you know why? They wanted this to happen because this is just going to create more dependents on unions and the government. It’s just gonna create more dependents. So this is all fine with Barry.
I know nobody understands me. I’m doing this program with a whole different mind-set now. Snerdley’s in there panicking. I’m saying mind-set. As I do this program I’m imagining how I’m being heard by all these uneducated, ill-educated, maleducated young people, and it’s fun, and I’m sure that they’re throwing daggers at their radio because they just heard me criticize Obama on this Hostess thing. Anyway it’s a funny thing. It’s actually a build-out on some of the things that we were discussing yesterday about the battles that we face really being cultural as well as, if not more than, politics. Anyway, the Hostess thing is what it is. It’s gone. We knew it was coming. It just illustrates there’s no desire to compromise.
Limbaugh’s blaming of Obama and unions leaves out a couple of important facts.
Hostess is dead due to Bain style management that has decided to maximize their profits by liquidating the company. In short, the “job creators” decided to make more money for themselves by killing 18,500 jobs.
If President Obama would have intervened, Limbaugh would have called him a socialist who hates the free market. Since Obama didn’t intervene, he is a socialist who is trying to create more dependents on the federal government. Either way, Rush Limbaugh’s psycho interpretation of The Day The Twinkies Died is complete and utter nonsense.
Unions didn’t kill Hostess, people who believe in the Mitt Romney school of management killed Hostess. America’s so-called job creators will pocket additional millions while 18,500 workers will be out of a job. Those are facts that Rush Limbaugh and right wing media bubble cronies don’t want to discuss.
h/t: PoliticusUSA
This morning, we have received tragic news that Hostess Brands will shut down, in retaliation for the striking workers standing up for their rights.
IRVING, Texas (AP) — Hostess Brands says it is going out of business, closing plants that make Twinkies and Wonder Bread and laying off all of its 18,500 workers.The Irving, Texas, company says a nationwide worker strike crippled its ability to make and deliver its products at several locations.
Hostess had warned employees that it would file a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to unwind its business and sell assets if plant operations didn’t return to normal levels by Thursday evening.
Laura Clawson at Daily Kos on Hostess lying to its workers regarding the strike and closures:
Workers at more than 20 Hostess plants have gone on strike after overwhelmingly rejecting the company’s demands for major wage and benefits concessions. In response, Hostess is claiming that it may have to close plants because of the strike. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers union has a convincing argumentThat’s a lie, though.
Of course, right-wing loons will blame this on the unions.
#RIPHostess
Apparently, Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in workplace democracy. And as more and more reports of employer coercion of workers’ political rights emerge, it is clear that Romney’s disdain for workplace rights is not unique. In fact, the employer communications to workers that we are seeing include both direct and implicit threats and scare tactics to make employees fear for their jobs if President Obama wins. These are the same tactics that employers use against workers trying to organize a union. The Supreme Court has long recognized that even what appears on its face to be mere persuasion becomes inherently coercive when it’s an employer urging its employees to take particular actions.
Unions represent a necessary bulwark against bullying by employers, whether about the workplace or politics. That is why unions are critical to democracy, and why the right to organize is an internationally recognized human right. The recent outbreak of stories of employers bullying their workers into supporting their candidate underscores the crucial role of unions in our fragile democracy.
(via AFL-CIO Responds to Romney Call - Working In These Times)
