Author: Michael Whitney

Sad news out of West Virginia. Rescue teams finally made their way into the mine late last night to locate survivors, only to discover the four missing miners dead. That brings the death toll at the Montcoal mine to 29, making it the worst mine disaster since 38 miners died in an explosion in Kentucky in 1970.

It’s worth noting that there were 31 people in the mine at the time of the explosion. Only two people made it out; one is in intensive care, and the other has been released from the hospital.

The last four miners never even had a chance. Ken Ward of the West Virginia Gazette reports that “none of the miners had a chance to use their breathing devices, and none of the refuge chambers had been deployed.”

Rescue teams are beginning to extract the bodies from the mine. Now the process begins to figure out what went wrong and who will be held accountable.

(photograph courtesy UA)

Sen. Arlen Specter (photo by djwhelan)

Just days after the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO endorsed his candidacy, Arlen Specter tried to make good by rolling out something he called the “Workers’ Bill of Rights.” Sounds cool, right?

Specter’s bill of rights is a five-point platform: Forcing China to end its practice of pegging its currency to the U.S. dollar, more aggressive U.S. enforcement of trade laws, rescinding the president’s authority to overrule the International Trade Commission’s recommendations, speedier remedies for illegal trade claims, and stronger “Buy American” requirements under the stimulus.

I’m not sure how that amounts of a “Bill of Rights” – it’s more vague slate of labor-related policy ideas than anything else – but on the surface it’s not a bad collection of policy ideas for Specter to work on in the Senate.

The only problem is his spokeswoman shut that door real quick, saying it’s more “campaign rhetoric” than anything that will be “actual law.”

A spokeswoman for Specter said that the bill of rights is more likely to stay as campaign rhetoric than make their way toward actual law. The senator, though, has ratcheted up pressure on President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders when it comes to labor issues.

I’m hoping this is just the reporter confusing Specter for Sestak; otherwise, what a massive fail by Specter’s campaign to shoot down his own plan as “campaign rhetoric.” In the mean time, I’ve asked the reporter for clarification.

UPDATE: No, the reporter is standing by his reporting that Specter’s own spokeswoman dismissed this as campaign rhetoric. Apparently Specter will be discussing these ideas in a speech but will not be following up with any legislation to actually enact these ideas. Fail, fail, fail.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)

[Ed. Note: Yet another headline where we feel compelled to say “Not an April Fools story.”]

In a pitch to progressives on the last day of the fundraising quarter, Michael Bennet takes full credit for the resurrection of health care reform and the passage of the reconciliation bill. Seriously. (My emphasis.)

Michael isn’t a fan of playing it safe. Last summer, while other senators hedged, Michael hit the road, and held town halls where he fought for health care reform – including a public option – in some of the most conservative areas of Colorado. Then Michael went on national television and said he would be willing to lose his seat in order to pass real health care reform, and he meant it.

Michael didn’t just vote for a health care bill – he worked to make it better. He voted against the Stupak/Nelson amendment, recognizing it as an unacceptable burden on a woman’s right to choose. While other senators used their leverage to strike backroom Washington deals, Michael was the first Democrat to speak out against them. And Michael’s push for an up or down vote on the public option reinvigorated the health care debate and sparked the momentum Congress needed to pass the reconciliation bill.

The entirety of Michael Bennet’s role in the health care debate – nay, his Congressional career – can only be described as “playing it safe.” Well, also, “having it both ways.”

Bennet takes credit for voting against the Nelson amendment… before he voted for it in the final bill. Bennet says that he fought for the public option… before he abandoned it. And Bennet takes credit for “sparking the momentum” to pass the reconciliation bill… a reconciliation bill he continuously lied about in order to cover his ass for abandoning the public option.

Michael Bennet has swindled progressive activists out of more than $70,000 in his faux grandstanding for the public option. Not only should he be denied every dime from here on out, he should return the cash he took before breaking his promise to “save the public option.”

UPDATE: The campaign of Andrew Romanoff, Bennet’s primary opponent, responds by pointing to a post by Romanoff’s campaign manager that puts Bennet’s strange positioning in the context of Alice in Wonderland.

“Curiouser and curiouser.”

Alice’s words describe Washington as well as Wonderland. Where else would you be able to make a promise, break a promise, and then insult your constituents for calling you on it?

That’s the way Washington works. Take the debate over the public health insurance option — please. First, you hem and haw about the proposal — you don’t want to “draw lines in the sand,” (1) after all. Then you pledge to support it (2) … before you vote for a bill without it (3).

I regret not posting this earlier. Today is Cesar Chavez Day, honoring the birthday of the great Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers. Here’s Obama’s statement, in which he designated today Cesar Chavez Day while meeting with the leader’s relatives:

“Today, on what would have been his 82nd birthday, Cesar Chavez’s legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and as a civil rights leader who struggled for fair treatment and fair wages for America’s workers is important for every American to remember.

Having begun as a farmworker, Cesar Chavez eventually co-founded the United Farm Workers and struggled to provide hundreds of thousands of people with better working conditions and the chance to live a better life. The cause of fair treatment and fair wages for America’s workers lives on today through the work of countless others.

Chavez’s rallying cry, “Sí Se Puede” – “Yes We Can,” was more than a slogan, it was an expression of hope and a rejection of those who said farmworkers could not organize, and could not take on the growers. Through his courage, Cesar Chavez taught us that a single voice could change our country, and that together, we could make America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation.”

The UFW has a great history of the life of Cesar Chavez for your pleasure. You can also sign the petition for an official Cesar Chavez holiday.

Read between the lines. Image via HuffPost

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg predicts that if the 2010 election were held today, it would be bad enough for Democrats to be 1994 all over again. According to new polling released by Greenberg and partner James Carville, Democrats are held in such little regard today that “we’re on the edge of 1994… If the election were now, you would be there.”

Don’t act surprised. Rahm promised us this would happen:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

Greenberg notes that his models show that Democrats should at least “marginally” improve by November, with “Democratic enthusiasm rebounding a little in the aftermath of the healthcare bill.”

That’s hardly reassuring. We’re on the brink of 1994, and it’s all because Rahm Emanuel drove us to the edge of this cliff. (And remember, he did the same damn thing in 1994, too.)

The Pennsylvania State AFL-CIO voted to endorse Senator Arlen Specter for re-election today, David Dayen reports at our News Desk. The state chapter of the AFL-CIO joins SEIU’s Pennsylvania State Council in supporting Specter.

Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat now running for re-election, has received the endorsement of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in his primary campaign against Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak.

Specter has received plenty of labor endorsements before, even when he ran as a Republican (they backed him in 2004 over Democrat Joe Hoeffel). But considering that Specter vocally opposed the Employee Free Choice Act last year, his return to the good graces of labor is a bit surprising. Specter had to win over 2/3 of the members present at the state federation meeting.

“In our opinion Senator Arlen Specter is the strongest advocate and supporter for good jobs, fair trade policies, workers’ rights and quality affordable health care for all,” said Bill George, president of the umbrella group, which represents 900,000 workers statewide.

Arlen Specter didn’t vocally oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. He single-handedly killed the entire bill.

At the outset of 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act was cruising along quite well. With a big investment from unions and their allies, and a vocal opposition from the Chamber of Commerce and other Big Business groups, the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act was in full swing in political circles and the news media. While contentious, there was little doubt in my mind some form of significant labor law reform would pass early that year. (Disclosure: I was working for SEIU’s Employee Free Choice Act campaign at the time.)

Then Arlen Specter acted on the only thing he actually cares about: his own political survival. He could feel GOP primary opponent Pat Toomey breathing down his neck. A poll was released in March showing Specter getting crushed in the primary. So Specter made a move he thought would redeem himself with angry primary voters: without warning, Specter announced he would oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. When I say without warning, I mean no one saw it coming. The first person to hear about Specter’s newfound opposition was freaking Grover Norquist, who announced the news to a roomful of conservatives one morning. Grover knew before union leaders knew.

Later that afternoon, Specter took to the Senate floor and announced he would oppose cloture on the “Employees’ Choice Act,” one of the many iterations Specter called the Employee Free Choice Act. (See also: “Freedom of Choice Act,” “Employees’ Choice of Freedom,” “Employees’ Choice, ” etc.) In addition to his announcement of opposing cloture, Specter offered a handful of suggestions for how to “improve” the Employee Free Choice Act, some of which could have conceivably have been considered in a compromise, others that were outrageous (like banning organizers from talking with union members at their homes.). In short, Specter flipped the bird to working people in a blatant attempt to save his own electoral ask.

Unions were rightly outraged at Specter. State union leaders came to DC to meet with Specter. Local members were pissed as hell, and some organized demonstrations at his offices throughout Pennsylvania. Both SEIU and the AFL-CIO went apeshit on Specter online, each releasing videos contrasting Specter’s past support for the bill with his newest flip flop, slamming his office with phone calls from internet activists and patch-through phone banks, and flooding his offices with faxes.

What a shock when it turns out that opposing the Employee Free Choice Act didn’t save Specter in the polls, and further alienated him from both parties. So Specter made the ultimate flip flop and decided to become a member of the Democratic Party in yet another attempt to save his electoral ass. To stick it to his newfound friends, Specter announced at his party switch that he still would oppose cloture for the Employee Free Choice Act. About four months later, in August, after taking some massive heat from local union members whom Joe Sestak was courting.

Even if Specter came out right at his party switch in April and said he would support the Employee Free Choice Act, it was dead anyway. Just days after Specter’s March 24 announcement he would oppose the bill, other Senators saw the opportunity to announce that they, too, had concerns with the bill and would not support it without signficant changes. On March 27, California Senator Diane Feinstein announced that she wasn’t inclined to embrace the bill. On April 6, Blanche Lincoln came out strong against the Employee Free Choice Act. On April 20, Virginia Democrat Jim Webb expressed reservations about the bill. And then, on April 28, Arlen Specter switched parties, with a warning that he “would not be an automatic 60th vote … for example, my position on Employees’ Free Choice will not change.”

And so today, the unions of almost 1 million working Pennsylvanians have thrown their support to Specter’s re-election, promoting the fallacy that Specter is “the strongest advocate and supporter of…workers’ rights.”

Bullshit. Arlen Specter killed the Employee Free Choice Act.

Today President Obama announced a series of recess appointments, including – count ‘em – two seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both appointees, Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, are Democrats nominees. A third nominee, Brian Hayes, a staffer for Senator Mike Enzi, was left behind to be voted on by the Senate.

The NLRB is the federal agency that oversees the laws relating to union organizing, and for more than two years, the NLRB has had just two of its five members. Those two members – one Democrat, one Republican – have had to set aside hundreds of cases on which they could not agree in anticipation of at least a third member. On the cases the two NLRB members have decided, anti-worker advocates contested the validity of those decisions all the way up to the Supreme Court this week. While discussing the extended NLRB vacancies, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?”

Obama finally wondered the same thing and put Becker and Pearce on the NLRB. I had worried about a recess appointment of just Becker, as the Republicans could have easily held up Pearce for revenge. So it’s good to see Obama take AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s advice and appoint both Democratic nominees.

Now, the problem is that the appointments of Becker and Pearce will only last until the end of this Senate session – the end of 2010 – as opposed to the normal four years of an NLRB term. That means in the next session of Congress, with fewer Democratic Senate seats, there’s going to be yet another fight to staff the NLRB. And there’s no expectation Republicans will think about lifting a finger to make sure the NLRB can function. I wrote this right before Becker’s nomination was returned by the Senate:

In a broader context, Becker is the latest front in the right’s fight against any person or policy considered remotely pro-worker. As with DeMint’s victory over possibly pro-worker TSA nominee Erroll Southers, the fight over Becker shows the extent to which the corporations and their Members of Congress bring out the big guns for any possible advancement of the middle class and workers’ rights. By chipping away at the core of the labor movement, the right erodes the very base of the Democratic Party. It’s a direct hit: labor unions mean boots on the ground for candidates, money for ads, and more. And each time the right picks a fight with Becker, Southers, or the Employee Free Choice Act, both corporations and the right directly benefit from one fewer chance for workers to exercise their rights and one fewer chance for the labor movement to represent the interests of the middle class. Craig Becker needs to be confirmed to the NLRB, if only to ease the bleeding of representation for working people in our government.

This is a fight that will never end. But for the time being, the National Labor Relations Board can get to work – with a 3-1 Democratic majority. It will be a better remainder of 2010 for workers.

Whirlpool Rally in Evansville, IN (photo: Ohio AFL-CIO via Flickr)

After a valiant effort by the Evansville community to save the jobs of more than 1,000 people, Whirlpool is moving unabated in shutting down the operations of its Indiana plant – starting today.

Union officials say Friday was the last day for 465 workers at the plant. Whirlpool announced last year that it would shut down the 1,100-worker refrigerator factory and move production to Mexico.

A few dozen union members held protest signs in the rain Thursday along U.S. 41 outside the plant. Worker Danny Rowe said he hoped their presence reminded others about the number of jobs leaving the country.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka led 1500 people in a march earlier this year to protest the move to Mexico.  The plant, which currently employs 1100 people, will shut down by the end of June.

This marks yet another entry in the long record of American companies killing American jobs in search of cheap labor.  And for what?  A 77% raise for its CEO, plus $19 million in stimulus funds.

Even as Whirlpool is forcing workers to the unemployment line and the plant’s closing is sending economic shockwaves through the Evansville community, CEO and Chairman Jeff Fettig won’t have to worry about covering his rent.

Earlier this month, the Dow Jones News Wire reported that his 2009 compensation rose 77 percent.

Fettig’s salary, incentive-based pay, executive perks, and stock and options awards amounted to $10.81 million, up from $6.11 million in 2008, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchanges Commission….The company’s net income fell 21.5 percent from 2008, while sales slipped 9.56 percent. But Fettig received $3.5 million in nonequity incentive pay, up from $420,000 the year before.

Whirlpool also received $19 million as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to build more energy efficient and green appliances. But it is spending $110 million to build a new plant in Mexico.

In other news: way to go, GOP, for continuing to deny jobless Americans unemployment benefits.

Tags: AFL-CIO, Buy American, CEO pay, Indiana, layoffs, Mexico, offshoring, Whirlpool

(photo: Leo Reynolds)

According to the Arkansas State AFL-CIO, members are reporting that they’ve received phone calls from Blanche Lincoln’s Senate campaign that smear Bill Halter for receiving support from labor unions. A source with the Arkansas AFL-CIO reports:

The Senators phone survey first asks how the constitutient feels about Lt. Gov. Halter. The survey then goes on to ask the constitutient if they are aware that the Lt. Governor has accepted money from unions.

Uh, Blanche?

Career Donations from Labor PACs: $576,900

Arkansas AFL-CIO President Alan Hughes fired back at Lincoln:

“Only someone who has become a career politician in Washington DC could spend ten years asking for our support, take hundreds of thousands of dollars from blue collar workers, then turn around and attack us as ‘outsiders’ because we wouldn’t help her this time around. That’s not the values people in Arkansas believe in.”

Zing!

Tags: 2010 Election, AFL-CIO, AR-Sen, Arkansas, arkansas afl-cio, Blanche Lincoln, political contributions

Hey, Internet! Did you know that by reading news in an online medium you cede your rights as both a voting citizen and as a person? According to Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, that’s all true!

Bennet is feeling the pressure at home for bailing on his promise to “save the public option,” and now he’s lashing out. A local TV news outlet in Bennet’s hometown of Denver reported last night that Bennet says he “doesn’t confuse the blogosphere for real people and real voters.” Watch the local news report to the right of this post (our petition delivery starts about 1 minute in; Bennet’s quote is at the very end).

The petition we delivered yesterday included signatures from more than 35,000 people across the country, including about 2,000 Coloradans. But Bennet wants to plug his ears and pretend people who support the public option and want him to follow through aren’t “real people and real voters.”

That’s not the only instance of Bennet feeling the heat. His campaign went as far as to accuse his primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, of “aligning with the GOP” to “embrace the kill the bill strategy.” Bennet sent out a press release chock full of lies about what Romanoff is asking, and what the Senate is actually debating. Here’s just a snippet:

As final, critical health care reforms are considered in the Senate, Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff — who has consistently refused to support Democratic health care reform efforts — continues stand with Republicans in Washington in opposition to real health care reforms.

What else to call this but a crock of shit? Romanoff is simply asking Bennet wanted to do in the first place: include a public option in the reconciliation package. To go as far as call accuse his opponent of “aligning with the GOP,” and accuse his constituents of not being “real people,” is beyond the pale.

If you’re in Colorado, please call Senator Bennet and tell him that you are in fact a real person and a real voter, and that you simply want Bennet to do what he said he’d do: save the public option.

If you’re not in Colorado, we’re blanketing the state in online ads ahead of the vote in the Senate later today. We want to engage Coloradans to pressure Bennet in these final hours. Please donate to help us run these ads now.

Tags: co-sen, Colorado, health care reform, Michael Bennet, public option, senator micahel bennet, video

AFL-CIO headquarters (photo: NCinDC via Flickr)

With the Senate vote-arama commencing this afternoon on the health reform fixes in the reconciliation bill, the AFL-CIO is telling Senators to vote no on any and all amendments.  That includes the public option, if it’s introduced.

But leaders have decided, for better or worse, on a “don’t rock the boat” strategy. They want the final vote on the reconciliation bill in the Senate to be the last vote in this grueling health care process. Period.

To help keep members in line, the AFL-CIO is telling members they will not be penalized for voting against progressive amendments. They’re sending the following message: “a NO on amendments is a YES on health care.”

The biggest part of the reconciliation bill is the fix on the excise tax on middle class health care plans, negotiated between the White House and the labor movement in January and passed by the House Sunday night.  It revises the tax to hit a broader range of union and nonunion workers with expensive health care plans, and delays the start of the tax until 2018.

The deal was key to flipping the AFL-CIO from its insistence on the inclusion of a public option to outright support and advocacy for the bill with the excise tax fix.

Back in September, Trumka drew a clear line in the sand for the health care bill:

Richard Trumka, who will replace Sweeney as president in a couple of weeks, said there are “three absolute musts” for health care: the public option, an employer mandate, and no taxes on employer-provided health care.

“That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option in it,” Trumka said.

Of course, Trumka got none of the “three absolute musts” for the health care bill except for staving off the excise tax for eight years.  So it makes sense for the AFL-CIO to want to protect the deal at all costs, even if it means whipping against amendments it would otherwise support.

The AFL-CIO’s initial publicity around its no votes on amendments push framed any amendment as “a ploy to defeat the bill.”  But that counted out the real possibility of Democratic Senators introducing amendments of their own – such as Colorado Senator Michael Bennet introducing a public option amendment.  I asked about that possibility to Josh Goldstein, spokesperson at the AFL-CIO.

“There’s the possibility we’re going to have to say no to a lot of issues that normally are major priorities.” said Goldstein.  ”We’re for the public option – always have been and will continue to push for that.  But to finish this critical first step in health care reform for all Americans, the Senate must pass the reconciliation bill passed by the House.”

Unfortunately, any move to “continue to push” for the public option will face a steeper slope than the one it faces now.  While the public option would normally have to pass with 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, the reconciliation process going on in the Senate means it would only take 50 votes.  The time to fix it later is now.

Tags: AFL-CIO, excise tax, health care reform, public option, Reconciliation, Richard Trumka

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet first circulated a letter to his colleagues in the Senate to “save the public option.” He and 23 other Senators wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and asked that the public option be inserted into the reconciliation package for health reform. Another two dozen Senators expressed public support for a public option if it came to a vote.

But now that Bernie Sanders has backed down on offering a public option amendment, another Senator needs to step up to the plate. After leading online activists and almost half his caucus to “save the public option,” it should be a no-brainer for Michael Bennet to show he’s a true leader and offer the public option amendment for a vote.

Unfortunately, it looks like Bennet is trying to weasel out of supporting the public option: Politico spoke with his campaign manager just now:

Bennet campaign manager Craig Hughes dismissed Romanoff’s message, telling POLITICO: “Issuing a press release is not leadership.”

“Andrew has repeatedly suggested he would have joined the Republican filibuster of health care reform in December and the House would never have had the opportunity to pass this critical legislation,” Hughes said. “What we’re not going to do is kill the bill to make a point.”

Andrew Romanoff, in a chat tonight on Firedoglake, responded to Bennet’s campaign:

That makes no sense. The bill they’re referring to is headed to the President’s desk. It will be signed into law tomorrow. Restoring the public option would strengthen health care reform. Leadership means more than making a speech or writing a letter — it means taking a stand, even if the leaders of your party aren’t ready to stand with you.

The only thing I’d add is that Bennet shouldn’t question Romanoff’s leadership, when Bennet’s abandoning his own. Let’s look at how much Bennet is walking back.

When Bennet first launched his campaign for the public option, here’s what he wrote:

Including a public option in our final health care reform legislation will make that bill far more effective.

Reforming health care will curb runaway costs and save vast sums of money — savings that will be increased by billions of dollars if we include a public option. According to the CBO, the public option would not only be budget-neutral, it could actually reduce our deficit by $130 billion in just the first 10 years.

Just as important to me is what I’ve learned while listening to the stories of people across Colorado: our working families want a public option — and need a public option — because there aren’t enough real choices available for them when picking their health insurance. […]

We need to put consumers in charge by giving them more choices and ending these shameful practices that work for insurance companies, but not for people in Colorado and across the country. The current health care reform bill is a historic first step in extending coverage and controlling costs, but we need to take the final step to include a public option. […]

With majorities in the House and the Senate, we can use the reconciliation process to include a public option in the final bill. The reconciliation process has been used for just this kind of urgent, publicly-mandated legislation before: it was used when we passed the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA).

Those are powerful words in support of the public option, and clearly show that Bennet was in full support of using reconciliation for the public option. If Bennet doesn’t live up to these words, it’s clear they were for cheap political points. His opponent in the Colorado Senate primary, Andrew Romanoff, has the same concern. Romanoff said he was “deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill,” and went on to call on Senate leadership to have an “up or down vote.” His campaign staff adds:

Bennet has spent the last month and a half touting his letter demanding a public option – and getting a lot of press for that move But now, thanks to Romanoff’s demand, he will have to put up or shut up. If he refuses to offer the amendment, he shows his past efforts to be kabuki theater – grandstanding for attention while refusing to actually take the steps necessary to do what he publicly claims he wants to do.

Let’s be clear one more time : health insurance reform has already passed. President Obama will sign the legislation into law at any time. Anything that’s done in Congress during this next stage will simply fix what will already be the law. Adding a public option to these fixes won’t endanger passage of reform in the House, because that’s already over. A majority of the Senate has said they’d vote for a public option. A whopping 60% of Coloradans support a public option. There’s no reason for Bennet not to force a vote on the issue.

More than 25,000 people have already signed our petition to Michael Bennet to force a vote on the public option. We’ll deliver it to his office in Denver on Wednesday, the last day that he can submit an amendment for debate in the Senate. Click here to add your name.

Tags: Andrew Romanoff, co-sen, health care reform, Michael Bennet, public option, Reconciliation

The Change to Win labor federation has unsurprisingly backed the health care bill, even with the increased excise tax on middle class health care plans. (The change to the tax ended up including more people in the tax each year by attaching it to, rather than slightly above, inflation.)

Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO’s Executive Committee is still discussing its support for the bill with the increased tax. Ben Smith:

While the AFL-CIO deliberates, the Change to Win federation, which includes SEIU and the Teamsters, isn’t nit-picking on the excise tax.

The group’s Anna Burger says in a statement:

This is it. This is the moment of truth for every Member of Congress.

It is time for Congress members to decide on which side of history will they stand. They must choose between working families struggling to get by and an insurance industry that puts profits before the people they are supposed to serve.

For generations, this country has known the need for reform. For the past year, we have as a nation debated and fought for real health insurance reform. Now, it’s time for Congress to deliver.

[Update: The AFL-CIO voted to endorse the health care bill despite the increase in the excise tax on all affected health care plans. Additionally, the Merkley Amendment to require employers in high-risk jobs like construction to provide health insurance was removed from the bill because it wouldn’t impact the budget. Obama apparently promised to pass that bill separately. Good luck with that.]

SEIU, the Teamsters, and the rest of the Change to Win coalition aren’t nitpicking the increased excise tax, because they’ve never been concerned about it. The workers represented by those unions are predominantly lower wage earners with less generous health care packages that won’t be affected by the tax. The excise tax was always designed to hit the unions like AFSCME, CWA, and others in the AFL-CIO, who have workers with bigger, more expensive health care plans (negotiated in exchange for foregone wage hikes).

So in short, big whoop about Change to Win. The AFL-CIO is where to watch. Of course, they’ll almost inevitably support the bill; the trick is what did Trumka negotiate for at the White House last night?

Tags: AFL-CIO, anna burger, Cadillac tax, change to win, excise tax, health care reform, seiu

This is frankly rather amazing in that totally-saw-it-coming way. We’ve been waiting for days to see the CBO score to see how much the final health care bill will cost, with the goals being to both reduce the deficit and to fit under the arbitrary $900 billion cap posed by Obama.

It seems they’ve been unable to do so, as Ben Smith now reports that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is on his way to the White House to discuss plans by Democrats to actually raise the tax on middle class health care plans in order to pay for the bill.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is headed into a meeting with President Obama this afternoon after the White House and Congressional leaders have begun to discuss a higher-than-expected excise tax on some health care plans, in order to maintain their claim that health care legislation will reduce the deficit, a source involved in health care talks said.

Any unexpected change to the health care plan could endanger support for the bill from labor, which agreed to back it after reductions to the planned excise tax. Proposed new changes, I’m told, concern cuts to the rate at which increases to the tax exemption cap are indexed.

They already stole at least $10 billion in the student loan reform bill from community colleges to pay for this PhRMA bailout. Jon Walker notes that adding a public option would save at least $25 billion in the bill. The House paid for its bill by taxing the richest Americans.

And yet, faced will trying to contain the costs of this bill, Democrats’ first instinct is to raise taxes on the middle class even further. Brilliant!

Frankly, this is what unions get for accepting the excise tax in the first place. They agreed to the health care tax — a Reagan idea — and so of course they should expect it to be raised. I just don’t think they thought it’d be raised before they even pass the bill.

[Ed. Note: Dave has a bit more.]

Tags: AFL-CIO, Cadillac tax, excise tax, health care reform, Richard Trumka, Ronald Reagan

Barack Obama Is Watching Your Kids, Just Not the Banks (Photo via White House)

This is the kind of moment for which you want your Democratic President to really step up.

In the middle of the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, more than 90 dedicated professional educators find themselves put out into the street. On Feb. 23, the Central Falls, R.I., school trustees fired the entire teaching staff of Central Falls High School, supposedly because of declining test scores at the school, which is located in Rhode Island’s smallest and poorest city.

In all, 93 persons were put in the street—74 classroom teachers, plus reading specialists, guidance counselors, physical education teachers, the school psychologist, the principal and three assistant principals. Negotiations over ways to improve the school between teachers and the school superintendent broke down when school officials insisted that teachers add new duties, some without any extra pay at all.

A wholesale firing of an entire school; the only ones left in the entire high school are the food service workers and the custodians.

So, why is the Obama administration going out of its way to praise this mass firing?  In a speech to Colin Powell’s dropout prevention nonprofit at the US Chamber of Commerce headquarters, Obama “voiced support” for the firings.

President Obama voiced support Monday for the mass firings of educators at a failing Rhode Island school, drawing an immediate rebuke from teachers union officials whose members have chafed at some of his education policies.

Speaking at an event intended to highlight his strategy for turning around struggling schools by offering an increase in federal funding for local districts that shake up their lowest-achieving campuses, Obama called the controversial firings justified.

This wasn’t just an off the cuff remark from Obama – this is the administration’s official position. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan went out of his way to praise the firings.

Meanwhile, state and local education officials received some high-powered support of their own, when U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan weighed in, saying he “applauded” them for “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.” […]

“This is hard work and these are tough decisions, but students only have one chance for an education,” Education Secretary Duncan said, “and when schools continue to struggle we have a collective obligation to take action.”

So yeah, the position of Barack Obama’s administration is that when schools aren’t doing well, it’s totally cool to clean house and fire everyone but the food service workers, no questions asked.

And the position of Barack Obama’s administration with failing banks and financial institutions?  Keep every single one (except the guy forced out by shareholders), and hell, keep their ludicrous pay – cause it’s in their contracts.

At least he’s consistent.

You can sign a petition to support the teachers at Central Falls High School here with the AFT.

Tags: AFT, Arne Duncan, banks, banksters, Central Falls High School, contracts, Rhode Island, teachers’ unions

Bethlehem Steel Plant Exterior, Buffalo, NY | via Jay Morrison on Flickr

The New York Times has a heart-breaking account of the fallout of a steel plant closure in Lackawanna, an immediate suburb of my hometown of Buffalo, NY. Within weeks of the announced plant closure, 3 workers suffered heart attacks, two of which were fatal.

The first to have a heart attack was George Kull Jr., 56, a millwright who worked for three decades at the steel mills in Lackawanna, N.Y. Three weeks after learning that his plant was closing, he suddenly collapsed at home.

Less than two hours later, he was pronounced dead.

A few weeks after that, a co-worker, Bob Smith, 42, a forklift operator with four young children, started having chest pains. He learned at the doctor’s office that he was having a heart attack. Surgeons inserted three stents, saving his life.

Less than a month later, Don Turner, 55, a crane operator who had started at the mills as a teenager, was found by his wife, Darlene, slumped on a love seat, stricken by a fatal heart attack.

It is impossible to say exactly why these men, all in relatively good health, had heart attacks within weeks of one another. But interviews with friends and relatives of Mr. Kull and Mr. Turner, and with Mr. Smith, suggest that the trauma of losing their jobs might have played a role.

It’s not just in Lackawanna. Multiple studies have found that layoffs not only lead to increased health complications, they can also significantly decrease life expectancy even for relatively young workers.

A growing body of research suggests that layoffs can have profound health consequences. One 2006 study by a group of epidemiologists at Yale found that layoffs more than doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke among older workers. Another paper, published last year by Kate W. Strully, a sociology professor at the State University of New York at Albany, found that a person who lost a job had an 83 percent greater chance of developing a stress-related health problem, like diabetes, arthritis or psychiatric issues.

In perhaps the most sobering finding, a study published last year found that layoffs can affect life expectancy. The paper, by Till von Wachter, a Columbia University economist, and Daniel G. Sullivan, director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, examined death records and earnings data in Pennsylvania during the recession of the early 1980s and concluded that death rates among high-seniority male workers jumped by 50 percent to 100 percent in the year after a job loss, depending on the worker’s age. Even 20 years later, deaths were 10 percent to 15 percent higher. That meant a worker who lost his job at age 40 had his life expectancy cut by a year to a year and half.

Interestingly, while some of the workers had a history of health problems (and believe me, Buffalo isn’t the healthiest city in the world, with a food culture of beef on weck, fried chicken wings, and delicious [union-made!] Labatt beer doesn’t help), none died until the layoffs hit.

Nevertheless, it was not until after company officials announced that the Lackawanna plant was closing that any of the workers actually died from a heart attack.

Buffalo is a city wracked by the loss of manufacturing jobs; what was once an “All America City” that hosted the World’s Fair in 1901 (at which President McKinley was assassinated..sorry about that, America – but hey, we named a mall after him!) and until key shipping port for steel and grains has declined to a city with meager manufacturing and a prevalence of health care and financial jobs. The major steel company at which these workers were employed originally closed in 1985, after a long period of layoffs and declining production.

What is certain though is that Buffalo is a microcosm for the decline of manufacturing jobs, real American production, and the squeezing of America’s middle class. That workers internalize this stress shouldn’t be a surprise; it’s simply a sad testament to the new economy. Until there’s real investments made in jobs and in rebuilding the middle class, this decline of jobs, manufacturing, the middle class, and workers’ health will continue unabated.

In a PowerPoint presentation released as part of the Congressional investigation into Toyota’s “unintended acceleration” problems, the car manufacturer reveals that the delay of the Employee Free Choice Act was a “win” for its Washington lobbying office.

The July 2009 presentation by Toyota executives boasted that the delay of recalls saved the company $100 million. But a closer look at the presentation in full shows the disdain the company has for its employees and unions.

Under the header “Washington Office: Wins for Toyota & Industry,” Toyota lists as “‘Card Check’ – legislation delayed.” as a “win.” Not content with its delay, the Employee Free Choice Act is again listed as a “key issue” of Toyota’s government affairs team.

Labor issues: “Card Check”

• Easier union organizing
• Increased labor costs
• Mandated contracts

It’s also worth noting that the first ally of Toyota listed is the US Chamber of Commerce, which is referenced multiple times in the presentation as a reliable source.

A handful of Toytoas are union made, including the 2010 Corolla and Tacoma. But Toyota plans to close down one of its union plants, the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA that employs 4700. The AFL-CIO, UAW, and Teamsters renewed their efforts to keep the plant fro closing once Toyota’s “unintended acceleration” problems became a national issue. The deadline for the plant is April 1. (This is yet another good reminder to reference the UAW’s guide for union made cars.)

You can view the whole presentation from Toyota on its Washington affairs here (PDF).