|
March 2, 2009 |
|
|
|
RSS
2.0 feed
|
Updated DAILY... Almost
Every Day!™ by 9 a.m. Pacific
Links are
functional at date of posting, but sometimes expire.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Seattle
Times misrepresents Worker Privacy Act
With today's predictably anti-union
editorial, The Seattle Times -- like the (other) paid corporate
lobbyists in Washington state -- misrepresents proposed state legislation
called the Worker Privacy Act. Meanwhile, they refuse to answer the central
question of the debate: Why is compulsion -- and the threat of punishment or
firing -- a necessary component of employer free speech on matters of
individual private conscience that are not work-related?
Read more.
Local news:
► In today's Everett Herald -- Out of money, colleges can't retrain workers -- While enrollment at Everett and Edmonds community colleges is booming, hundreds more could attend the campuses but are being turned away because of a lack of funds.
► In today's Everett Herald -- In tough times, don't starve the solution (op-ed by EvCC Trustee) -- Everett Community College serves more than 18,000 people every year, providing education leading to family-wage jobs, worker retraining and crucial services. EvCC and the state's 33 other community colleges and technical schools are needed now, more than ever.
► In today's Yakima H-R -- Farmworker housing project could be ready by June -- The $10 million project in Wapato consists of 50 units on about three acres off of Dove Lane. Units will feature two, three and four bedrooms, and rent will range from $390 to $642 a month.
► In the PS Business Journal -- Gates, other philanthropies curb grants to support construction -- Several area philanthropies are pulling back from making new grants to construction campaigns of nonprofit groups, a move that may worsen the drop-off in commercial building.
Legislative news:
►
At AFL-CIO Now -- State
workers, taxpayers caught in fiscal vise -- Even
with the federal aid, a new analysis estimates that states still face a $350
billion shortfall in their operating budgets over the next 30 months. Most
of the federal money will go to specific projects, such as infrastructure,
Medicaid funding or education. But not to the day-to-day operating budgets.
► In the News Tribune -- Prevailing wage for workers often saves state money (Mark Martinez op-ed) -- The taxpayers of Washington have been well-served by prevailing wage: a strong apprenticeship system, workers’ compensation that actually pays injured workers, a vibrant local construction industry and a community of highly skilled, well-paid craft workers who live and pay taxes here. This is economic development in its best form.
Health
care news:
► In Sunday's News Tribune -- State must build strong health care safety net (op-ed) -- By the end of this year there could be 150,000 more uninsured people in our state due to job loss and Gov. Gregoire’s proposed cuts to safety net health care programs. That’s a 20% increase virtually overnight. Behind these big numbers are individual people who will be faced with choices none of us ever wants to make. Should I pay my rent or get that lump examined?
► Today from AP -- Confusion stalls stimulus aid for health insurance -- A $25 billion provision in the stimulus bill aimed to cut COBRA's price tag, reducing its cost by 65% for workers laid off as far back as Sept. 1. But employers say they need more guidance on how to implement it.
► In today's LA Times -- Half of nation's hospitals are running losses -- Many plan to cut services and staff as investment returns worsen and paying admissions decline, research shows.
► From AP -- Obama to tap Sebelius as health chief -- As health and human services secretary, she'll face a host of challenges, including a health system in disarray and a food supply at risk.
► In today's Washington Post -- Sebelius's political skills, experience win plaudits -- The Kansas governor has never lost an election, even as a Democrat in a Republican-dominated state, something analysts attribute to cool competence and a knack for reaching across the aisle.
► In today's News Tribune -- National health care reform: First, do no harm (editorial) -- President Obama and many others have plausible ideas for forcing efficiencies and economies on the system. But when trillions of dollars are up for grabs, powerful forces start grabbing.
National news:
►
In today's Washington Post -- The
Re-Redistributor (Dionne
column) -- Even as much of the middle class gets a tax
cut or no increase, the well-off will pay more. And before the howling on
the right gets too loud, consider that we have just gone through a long era
involving a far less frank form of redistribution -- upward. Do we want to
be a moderately more equal country or not? This is the question Obama has
put before the nation. Let's debate it without the distracting rhetorical
sideshows designed to obscure the stakes in the coming battle.
► In today's WSJ -- Republicans concede Obama's budget is hard to block -- Nonetheless, Republican congressional leaders ramp up their criticism of the president's plan.
► From AP -- Analysis: GOP faces uphill fight regaining seats if it's inflexible -- The Republicans' united stand against the Democratic president seems to play well in conservative districts. But it could hurt the party's national image and its efforts to regain control in Washington.
Employee
Free Choice Act news:
► In today's NY Times -- In Obama, labor finds the support it expected -- He has issued four pro-labor executive orders that reversed Bush policies. He has also appointed a union-friendly NLRB chairwoman and a labor secretary whose parents were both union members. But those changes worry corporate America, especially as Obama has signaled he will push for the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor leaders expect Vice President Biden to spell out the administration’s battle plans for the bill on Thursday, when he is scheduled to speak at the AFL-CIO winter meeting.
MONDAY,
MARCH 2, 2009
Seattle Times misrepresents Worker Privacy Act
Bill doesn't restrict employer
speech, it protects workers' freedom not to listen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DAVID GROVES
Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
With today's predictably anti-union editorial, The Seattle Times -- like the (other) paid corporate lobbyists in Washington state -- misrepresents proposed state legislation called the Worker Privacy Act, while refusing to answer the central question of the debate: Why is compulsion -- and the threat of punishment or firing -- a necessary component of employer free speech on matters of individual private conscience that are not work-related?
The Times editorial does NOT object to the concept of protecting workers' freedom to choose whether to listen to employer communication on private matters of individual conscience, including politics, religion, and charitable giving. "Employers generally have no reason to hold (such) meetings," the Times says, despite legislative committee testimony to the contrary.
What Times editors can't stomach is including union-related issues on the privacy list.
The Times argues that the Worker Privacy Act, SB 5446 and HB 1528, would "restrict a company's ability to talk to its employees" and unfairly "disfavors" employer free speech about whether employees should unionize or on contract-related issues.
Employers retain
the right to communicate about politics, religion, charitable giving -- and
yes, unions -- under
the Worker Privacy Act. Employers can still hold meetings, send emails,
insert letters into paycheck envelopes, post fliers and communicate their
opinions about ALL issues in a host of other ways.
After employers expressed concerns, both SB 5446 and HB 1528 were amended by the Senate and House labor committees to clarify and reaffirm employers' First Amendment rights to all forms of communication, including all issues of individual conscience.
The only thing employers CAN'T do under the Worker Privacy Act is threaten, punish or fire employees who choose not to attend such meetings or respond to such communications.
How does it "restrict" or "disfavor" employer free speech to remove the elements of compulsion and threat from employer opinions about union-related matters? The Times doesn't say, other than to suggest that "as a general rule of business" -- whatever that means -- employees can be required to attend meetings.
The Times laughably closes its editorial by suggesting this "one-sided" bill "restricts employers but not unions" in what is already "one of the most union-friendly states."
On what planet can unions require people to attend a meeting? If you don't want to listen to a union organizer's pitch, you can shut the door, hang up the phone or delete the email. If you are threatened by a union organizer, you can call the police and have that person arrested and charged with a crime.
If your employer forces you against your will -- and with the threat to take away your family's livelihood -- to attend a meeting on unionization or other matters of individual conscience, that's perfectly legal -- or "a general rule of business," says the Times.
That's not right. And that's why we need the Worker Privacy Act.
Learn the truth about the Worker Privacy Act.
Copyright © 2009 -- Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO