WSLC Reports Today
Updated DAILY... Almost Every Day™ by 9 a.m.

Links are functional at date of posting, but sometimes expire. Some links require free registration.  WSLC Reports Today links to stories of interest to organized labor; some positive, some negative.  The intention is to inform.

FRIDAY, MAR. 16  ▪  Dead or alive... still wanted  (WSLC Legislative Update) -- Wednesday's cutoff deadline passed with a few significant victories, including Senate passage of an amended Family Leave Insurance bill. But there were also some major disappointments, including the failure of the Worker Freedom Act to get a House vote. See a roundup of what's still in play.

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2007
Poll: 3 of 4 Washington voters support Family Leave Insurance

Three of four Washington voters support creating a worker-funded Family and Medical Leave Insurance program covering all workers in Washington state, according to a new poll. Fully 73% of voters statewide support the legislation now moving through the legislature. In Eastern Washington, the support was a remarkable 82%. (See poll details.)

SB 5659 would establish Family and Medical Leave Insurance of up to five weeks of paid leave, after a one-week waiting period, at a stipend of $250 a week so workers can deal with a serious illness for a family member or the birth or adoption of a child. The insurance program would be financed by a 2-cents-an-hour payroll tax on workers, or $40 a year.

SB 5659 passed the Senate on Wednesday 32-17. Before passage, it was amended to stipulate that, although all workers are entitled to receive the benefit regardless of the size of their employer, only businesses with more than 25 employees are required to provide job protection (meaning the workers who take paid leave must be returned to their previous jobs and wages). In addition, the amendment removed coverage for the worker's own health conditions, which some argued should be covered by employer-provided sick leave instead. 

Here is Wednesday's roll-call vote (with Democrats listed in bold):

Voting YES: Benton, Berkey, Brown, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hobbs, Jacobsen, Kastama, Kauffman, Keiser, Kilmer, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Marr, McAuliffe, Murray, Oemig, Poulsen, Prentice, Pridemore, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Shin, Spanel, Tom, and Weinstein. (Democrats are listed in bold.)

Voting NO: Brandland, Carrell, Clements, Delvin, Haugen, Hewitt, Holmquist, Honeyford, McCaslin, Morton, Parlette, Pflug, Schoesler, Sheldon, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli.

SB 5659 now heads to the House, where it will get a public hearing in the House Commerce and Labor Committee at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 20.

The bills' supporters are buoyed by both the poll results and the Senate passage of the bill, and say they think 2007 could finally be the year that the Legislature finally acts on this long-considered idea.

"Everywhere you turn, you hear workers say I just don't have the time (to take off work for emergencies)," said Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-Seattle), prime sponsor of the House legislation. "Well, now is the time."

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2007
Under threat of lawsuit, Bush administration issues safety rule
AFL-CIO, UFCW had sued over 8-year delay on personal protective equipment

The following press release was released this morning by the AFL-CIO:

In response to a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), the Bush Administration has agreed to issue a final rule on employer payment for personal protective equipment (PPE) for employees.  In 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) first proposed a PPE rule that would require employers to pay the costs of protective clothing, lifelines, face shields, gloves and other equipment used by an estimated 20 million workers to protect them from job hazards.

"We applaud the decision to finally issue a final rule on employer payment for their employees' protective equipment," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.  "This rulemaking has taken far too long.  We will be monitoring  the Department of Labor's actions to make sure they honor this commitment  and issue a strong, protective rule."

On January 3, 2007, the AFL-CIO and UFCW filed a lawsuit against the Bush Administration over its failure to finalize the payment for PPE rule. The court ordered the Bush Administration to respond to the lawsuit by March 19. On March 14, the Secretary of Labor filed papers with the court committing to issue a final rule in November 2007.

"This is a victory for workers who have suffered needlessly while awaiting action by the Bush Administration," said Joe Hansen, UFCW International President.  "According to OSHA's own estimates, 400,000 workers have been injured and 50 have died while the rule has been in limbo. We expect a strong final rule this November."

Workers in the meatpacking, poultry and construction industries, and low-wage and immigrant workers are most vulnerable to injury. 

The rule was first announced in 1997 and proposed in 1999 by OSHA after a ruling by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that OSHA's existing PPE standard could not be interpreted to require employers to pay for protective equipment.  The rule proposed in 1999 did not impose any new  obligations on employers to provide safety equipment; it simply codified OSHA's policy that employers, not employees, have the responsibility to pay for it.  

In 1999, OSHA promised to issue the final PPE rule in July 2000. But it missed that deadline and has missed every self-imposed deadline since.  The agency has failed to act in response to a 2003 petition by the AFL-CIO and UFCW and numerous requests by the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.