|
|
Updated DAILY... Almost
Every Day!™ by 9 a.m. Pacific
Fri State Attorney General Rob McKenna's office has issued a formal opinion claiming that the Worker Privacy Act would be pre-empted by federal law. The opinion comes as no surprise to political observers, who expect the Republican attorney general to run for governor in 2012. If Washington had an attorney general who was more sympathetic to the rights of working people, he would likely produce a different opinion, as have McKenna's peers elsewhere who believe their states do have the right to protect workers' rights with such legislation. Read more. ► At HeraldNet.com -- AG says worker privacy bill conflicts with federal law -- Republican lawmakers got news they hope will prevent a major pro-labor bill from getting resurrected in the Legislature in 2010. Jeff Even of the Attorney General's office signed a formal opinion that concludes elements of the Worker Privacy Act are pre-empted by federal law.
National publications, universities and public policy groups that analyze state policies affecting business consistently rank Washington among the very best states for business. They say we have comparatively low business taxes, a lighter regulatory burden, a highly skilled and trained workforce, excellent higher education, and for those reasons and many others, our state economy outperforms those of other states. This is the first of a series of articles, "Outside the Echo Chamber," which aims to regain some perspective about our state's business climate and examine the successes we can build upon as business, labor and government leaders work together to maintain and increase the number of good-paying jobs in this state, particularly in the aerospace industry. Read more. ► At HorsesAss.org -- Washington's "terrible" business climate -- The first thing that has to happen to our discourse is that people stop equating unionization with “bad for business.” A highly trained, skilled and well compensated work force is an asset to any region.
| |||
|
Boeing news: ► At SPEEA.org -- Engineers at Spirit resoundingly reject company's contract offer (PDF) -- A contract offer by Spirit AeroSystems that had no guaranteed wage increases, could require four hours of unpaid overtime before receiving overtime pay and doubled medical premiums was rejected by 91% of the voting members in SPEEA's Wichita Engineering Unit. “I’m hopeful that the company will pay attention to this vote,” said Ray Goforth, SPEEA executive director. “We need a contract that rewards employees for the success they brought to Spirit since the divestiture from The Boeing Company.” ► At HeraldNet.com -- "Heads would roll" if Qatar Air's CEO took charge at Boeing -- Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker, who has said Boeing is "run by bean counters and lawyers," tells reporters that Boeing had “lost its leadership” said that management should have anticipated problems with the 787. He adds, if he were Boeing CEO “a lot of heads would roll." ► At HorsesAss.org -- Is Boeing going? -- What could possibly make more sense than starting a second assembly line at an existing Boeing facility in Everett with a highly-trained workforce that has proven track record of delivering quality product on time? And if that’s not reason enough to keep 787 assembly here in the Puget Sound region, no amount of tax or labor concessions will be enough to convince Boeing management to change its mind.
Health care news: ► At Huffington Post -- Enter Rahmbo -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says that the U.S. House could vote on a health care bill next week, despite disagreements with conservative Democrats. "I can tell you what I know, which is that the speaker today announced to the caucus that their intention is to go next week, and she is working toward that goal," he said. The top Obama staffer met for several hours with Blue Dogs on Thursday in a hastily-called negotiating session. White House aides were also optimistic that the talks would result in a floor vote for next week. ► In today's NY Times -- As health bill is delayed, White House negotiates -- White House officials negotiate furiously to keep major health care legislation on track after the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his chamber would not vote on a health measure until after Congress returned from its summer recess. ► In today's NY Times -- For public, Obama didn't fill in health care blanks -- Wanting to believe the president’s assurances, many couldn’t see how his health care plan would be paid for. ► At TheOlympian.com -- Insurance commissioner, insurers differ on "public plan" -- State insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler tells a legislative committee that he thinks a "public option" for health insurance might draw only as much as 15% of consumers. That's a lot less impact than critics of a public plan are suggesting. ► At Huffington Post -- New rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit (by Bill Maher) -- It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain."
► At AFL-CIO Now -- Contract arbitration: Critical to workers' freedom to bargain -- One of the critical provisions of the EFCA would guarantee that workers who form a union get a fair first contract. Because right now, writes Catherine Fisk of the University of California-Irvine: “During the past decade, nearly half of all newly certified unions failed to reach a first contract within a year, and one-quarter of new unions did not have a contract after three years of bargaining.”
National news:
► At AFL-CIO Now -- Minimum wage increases today -- 10 million see more pay -- Today, nearly 10 million workers in 31 states get a raise when the federal minimum wage increases by 70 cents to $7.25 an hour. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says the raise will act as a significant economic stimulus “at a moment when it is critically needed -- one that will lift all boats so Americans and businesses can stay afloat and ride out this economic storm.” ► In today's NY Times -- Where the jobs are (editorial) -- Today's minimum wage increase is badly needed, and wholly inadequate. With low-wage work expected to be the most plentiful in the years to come, raising the minimum wage should be a priority of the White House. ► At AFL-CIO Now -- Ohio Chamber of Commerce kills parade because unions backed it -- In Findlay, Ohio, unions had been organizing a parade and all-day event for this Saturday to highlight American-made products and the need for U.S. trade and economic policies that reward job growth in this country. But the local Chamber of Commerce killed the parade.
| ||||
|
FRIDAY,
JULY 24, 2009 By DAVID GROVES At the request of two Republican state legislative leaders, State Attorney General Rob McKenna's office issued a formal opinion Wednesday claiming that a labor-backed legislative proposal called the Worker Privacy Act would be pre-empted by federal law. The Worker Privacy Act, which has 47 sponsors in the House and 21 sponsors in the Senate, would allow workers in Washington state to choose whether or not to participate in employer communication on issues of individual conscience, including politics, religion, unionization, and charitable giving. After Democratic legislative leaders killed the WPA in this year's legislative session, Sens. Mike Hewitt (R-Walla Walla) and Janéa Holmquist (R-Moses Lake) requested the attorney general's opinion, in hopes of deterring the WPA's consideration and passage during next year's session. And as any good attorney knows, you don't ask a question unless you know what the answer is going to be. Sure enough, McKenna sides with Hewitt and Holmquist and Washington's business lobbying groups by saying he believes the WPA would be successfully challenged in federal court for violating employers' free speech rights, specifically on the issue of union organizing. (It will be McKenna's job, by the way, to defend the WPA from such a legal challenge should it be passed into law.) Other states have attorneys general and legislative legal counsel with a very different opinion:
Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said the following before the state's Judiciary Committee: "I have reviewed the case law regarding
pre-emption of
state laws by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)... Since state laws
are presumed to be constitutional, and no cases specifically pre-empt captive
audience state laws, the General Assembly should not withhold approval of
this proposed legislation because of pre-emption concerns... I will vigorously
defend the law against any challenge based on federal pre-emption." Fred Feinstein, who served five years as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that enforces the law McKenna believes the WPA is in conflict with, said, "I believe a state is not pre-empted from providing protection to employees who choose not to listen to an employer's views on unionization... Protecting employees from being compelled to listen to political speech, including views about unionization, falls within the language of Garmon that permits state regulation of activity touching upon 'deeply rooted local concerns.' In my view a court asked to consider the question would hold that the legislation is not pre-empted." The bottom line: what we have here is, literally, a difference of opinion. One opinion sides with the privacy and free-speech rights of workers, and the other aims to protect employers' ability to force -- not communicate, but FORCE -- their opinions regarding matters of individual conscience upon their employees under threat of discipline or firing. The Worker Privacy Act is a fair and reasonable minimum standard for protection of freedom and privacy at work, and in no way an employer "gag rule" as Republicans like McKenna and business lobbyists seek to portray it. Under the WPA, employers would retain their freedom of speech on all issues, including those of individual conscience. The only difference is that they would not be able to require employees to participate in such meetings, or punish or fire those who opt out. No one should be forced -- under threat of losing their family's livelihood -- to sit down and listen to someone indoctrinate them on issues that are none of their business, like how you should vote or worship. This is America. We shouldn't have to check our freedom of speech -- which necessarily includes the freedom not to listen -- at our employers' door. McKenna's decision this week is no surprise, it's just a reminder that Washington has an attorney general who is more sympathetic to business interests than he is to the rights of working people.
| ||||
|
Copyright © 2009 -- Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
|