When
CEOs in Washington decide the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
they seem to forget all about real workers and business owners
throughout America. For decades, they have fought legislation that
would have a real impact on working families right here in
Pennsylvania. With more than 530,000
Pennsylvanians out of work, now is the time to do everything we can to
stand up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - and stand up for working
families.
The
U.S. Chamber opposed wage hikes that not only benefited hundreds of
thousands of Pennsylvanians but also pump more than $132 million into
the state economy. They opposed a children's health care that will not
only cover 129,000 more children in Pennsylvania, but also will create
nearly 8,500 jobs in the state. The U.S. Chamber doesn't speak for
working families in Pennsylvania.
IMPACT OF MINIMUM WAGE HIKES ON PENNSYLVANIA:
The U.S. Chamber "Has Consistently Opposed Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage." In July 2007, Marc Freedman, the labor law policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage."
He added, "Increasing the minimum wage does not even help those it is
intended to benefit." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/17/07]
U.S. Chamber Official on Wage Hike: "We Have Taken The Hell No Attitude." "We have taken the 'hell, no' attitude," said the U.S. Chamber's Randel
Johnson discussing a proposed minimum wage increase in 1999. "I don't
care what the 20-second sound bites say. This move hurts lower-income, lower-skilled workers."[Akron Beacon Journal, 6/21/99]
U.S. Chamber Official: "We Don't Think Government Ought to Be in the Business of Setting Wages." In 2002, U.S. Chamber
spokesman Randy Johnson said, "We don't think the government ought to
be in the business of setting wages." [Washington Times, 5/6/02]
U.S. Chamber: "Wage Mandates Ignore the Principles of Free Market Economies." In
an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce wrote, "Wage mandates ignore the principles of free
market economies; they prevent businesses from making profits, growing
and hiring more workers; and they base wages on what the worker wants
instead of on the value of work performed." [The Pantagraph, 11/21/04]
2007 Minimum Wage Hike Could Pump $132.2 MILLION Into Pennsylvania's Economy. The average American works 1,916 hours every year. In 2007, 69,000 Pennsylvanians earned at or below the federal minimum wage. With an increase from $6.25 an hour to $7.25 an hour by July 2009, the 2007 wage increase passed by Congress could pump $132.2 million into Pennsylvania's economy. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Work Schedules in the National Compensation Survey," 7/28/08; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2007," 5/7/08; EPI, "What a new federal minimum wage means for the states," 5/25/07]
Study Found That 808,000 Pennsylvanians Would Benefit From the 2007 Minimum Wage Hike. The
Economic Policy Institute found that approximately 808,000 people in
Pennsylvania alone would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase
to $7.25 an hour. This include those workers that were earning less
than $7.25 as well as workers that would benefit indirectly as other
wages increase proportionately. EPI explained, "While
a raise is not legally mandated for these workers, empirical evidence
shows that many employers raise the wages of workers earning above the
new minimum wage in order to preserve internal wage structures, an
occurrence known as the 'spillover effect.'" [EPI, "Issue Guide on Minimum Wage, 8/1/08]
IMPACT OF FAIR PAY LAWS ON PENNSYLVANIA:
U.S. Chamber Opposed Equal Pay Bill, Saying it Would "Undermine America's Civil Rights Laws." In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the U.S. Chamber opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill to protect workers who receive unfair pay for equal work, "on both substantive and procedural grounds." Discussing another fair pay bill this year, the Chamber's Randel Johnson said, "further increasing the opportunity for frivolous litigation would only further serve to undermine America's civil rights laws." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09; Chamber Press Release, 1/9/09]
U.S. Chamber Opposed 1998 Equal Pay Law for Women. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber
opposed President Clinton's call for legislation to strengthen laws
reducing disparities in men and women's earning power. Randel Johnson,
vice president of labor policy at the chamber, said that wage
disparities are due mainly to the interruption of many women's job
careers to raise families. "Work experience does tend to translate to
greater wages," Johnson said. [AP, 6/10/98]
Women in Pennsylvania Earn Only 75% Of What Their Male Counterparts Make, Below the National Average. According to a study released by the National Women's Law Center, "In
2007, on average, women in Pennsylvania working full-time, year-round
earned only 75% of what men working full-time, year-round earned --
three percentage points below the nationwide average of 78%. The wage gap is even more substantial when race and gender are considered together. White,
non-Hispanic women working full-time, year-round in Pennsylvania earned
only 74% of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men. However, Black women
working full- time, year-round in Pennsylvania earned only 69%, and Hispanic women only 55%, of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men." [National Women's Law Center, April 2009]
IMPACT OF OUTSOURCING ON PENNSYLVANIA:
U.S. Chamber President Defended Outsourcing of U.S. Jobs, Arguing That Americans Are "Short of Skills." Defending outsourcing in 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "The
big fundamental issue that we need to understand is we are short of
skills in this country. Five years from now we'll have 10 million
skilled jobs and we haven't got the people to fill." [CNNFN, 5/3/04]
U.S. Chamber President: "There Are Legitimate Values in Outsourcing." In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "there are legitimate values in outsourcing
-- not only jobs, but work -- to gain technical experience and benefit
we don't have here, to lower the price of products, which means more
and more of them are brought into the United States, used, for example,
I.T., much broader use than it was 10 years ago, create more and more
jobs. But the bottom line is that we outsource
very few jobs in relation to the size of our economy. We employ --
American companies employ 140 million Americans. They provide health
care for 160 million Americans. They provide training in terms of 40
billion a year. The outsourcing
deal over three or four or five years and the two or three sets of
numbers are only going to be, you know, maybe two, maybe three million
jobs, maybe four." [CNNFN, 2/10/04]
U.S. Chamber President Suggested More Jobs Were Brought In to the U.S. Than Outsourced to Other Countries. In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "nobody knows where Lou got 2.2 [million] outsourced
jobs. Maybe we've got 300,000 in the last couple of years. The most
interesting thing is that if you take an annual basis, we insource in
the very same categories of work $16 billion more than we outsourced, which is 2 million jobs." [CNNFN, 9/2/04]
In 2007 Alone, Pennsylvania Lost 228,900 jobs to Outsourcing. According
to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, Pennsylvania lost
228,900 jobs as a result of the U.S. non-oil trade deficit in 2007
alone, making Pennsylvania the 8th
biggest loser in numeric terms. Nationwide, 5.6 million jobs were lost.
70% of these jobs were in the manufacturing sector. [EPI, 10/2/08]
Pennsylvania Has Lost Nearly 350,000 Manufacturing Jobs Since 2000. According
to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April 2009, there were 582,600
manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania. In January 2000, 931,100
Pennsylvanians worked in the manufacturing sector. [BLS, 5/22/09; 3/28/00]
IMPACT OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ON PENNSYLVANIA:
Chamber Opposed 2009 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In
a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce urged members to vote against the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, writing that the bill "raises
taxes on a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a
broad-based entitlement program, which is grossly unfair and burdensome
to American businesses and consumers." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09]
Chamber Opposed 2007 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In September 2007, the Phoenix Business Journal reported, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
is opposing a federal plan to raise tobacco taxes to fund
government-provided health services for uninsured children. That puts
the U.S. Chamber
on the same side of the issue as the Bush administration." "To
prejudice a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a
broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair and burdensome to
American businesses and consumers," said the chamber in a letter to congressional leaders on the issue. [Phoenix Business Journal, 9/26/07; Chamber Letter, 7/17/07]
129,000 Pennsylvania Children Could Gain Coverage Under the 2009 SCHIP Expansion. A 2009 report from Families USA
found that 129,000 Pennsylvania children could be covered under the
2009 bill to expand and reauthorize the State Children's Health
Insurance Program. [Families USA, January 2009]
Children's Health Care Reauthorization Will Bring $1.8 Billion Into Pennsylvania, Creating 8,498 Jobs. In 2007, a Families USA study found: "With
$50 billion in additional federal funding for SCHIP and Medicaid, SCHIP
reauthorization could bring Pennsylvania approximately $1.82 billion in
new federal funding for children's health coverage over the next five
years. This would result in the state getting three times the amount it
would have otherwise gotten for SCHIP... Over
the next five years, $1.82 billion in new federal funding will create:
$820.6 million in increased business activity, $287.7 million in
increased wages, and 8,498 additional jobs for Pennsylvania." [Families USA, May 2007]
IMPACT OF MEDICARE ON PENNSYLVANIA:
Chamber Opposed 2008 Bill to Prevent Medicare Cuts. In
June 2008, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that
the Chamber opposed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008, S. 3101, because it would cut the Medicare
Advantage program. Referring to the bill, and the cuts to the private
insurance Medicare Advantage program, the American Medical Association
aired an ad saying "A group of U.S. senators voted to protect the powerful insurance companies at the expense of Medicare patients' access to doctors." [Chamber Letter, 6/12/08; AP, 7/2/08]
2
Million Medicare Beneficiaries, Along With 161,653 Military Members and
Their Families, Would Have Been Affected If 2008 Medicare Cuts Had Gone
Through. In
2008, the Chamber opposed a bill that prevented a 10.6% cut in Medicare
payments to doctors. According to the American Medical Association,
2,005,670 Medicare patients and 161,653 TRICARE patients in
Pennsylvania would have been affected by these cuts. [American Medical
Association, February 2009]
IMPACT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ON PENNSYLVANIA:
U.S. Chamber Opposed the 1935 Social Security Act. According to an official history of Social Security, "In
1935, while there were long debate and votes on many amendments, the
Congress passed the Social Security Act by an overwhelming majority. In the House, the vote was 372 yeas, 33 nays and 25 not voting. The vote in the Senate was equally positive, with 77 yeas, 6 nays and 12 not voting. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Act into law on August 14, 1935. Despite the strong support, there was vocal opposition to the Act, both in the Congress and externally. The minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee said it would impose a crushing burden upon industry and upon labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill." [SSA History: History of SSA 1993-2000]
U.S. Chamber Wanted to Postpone 1935 Social Security Act. In
June 1935, the New York Times reported on a "broad program for recovery
and re-employment" adopted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On Social
Security, they reported, "The chamber will continue to advocate that
enactment of the major features of the pending social security
legislation be postponed until there can be further examination by a
Congressional committee. If a study of this character is made, the
chamber will present to such a committee its views as to the
constitutionality of the legislation as proposed and will emphasize the
fact that the proposals now pending would double the entire present
volume of Federal taxes." [New York Times, 6/16/35]
U.S. Chamber President: Any Social Security Reform "Must" Include Privatization. In
June 2005, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, co-wrote an op-ed that stated, "any Social Security reform
must meet four core principles," including "Giving younger workers the option of investing part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts." In January 2005, Donohue "said a Social Security overhaul is 'doable' this year and said the Chamber believes 'individual investment accounts must be an important component of reform.' [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/7/05; National Journal's CongressDaily, 1/5/05]
If Social Security Were Privatized, Pennsylvania Would Lose At Least $10.9 BILLION Every Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2002, $24.2 billion flowed into the Pennsylvania economy through Social Security benefits." If the cuts expected under President Bush's plan were to take effect currently, "Pennsylvania
would lose $10.9 billion per year, even including the proceeds from
private accounts. This amount is equivalent to 25% of state government
expenditures in fiscal year 2002 (state government expenditures include
money generated from state funds, federal funds, and the sale of state
bonds). [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]
Privatizing Social Security Would Impose a $42.4 BILLION Unfunded Mandate on Pennsylvania. According to the Institute for America's Future in 2005, the Bush Social Security privatization plan would create a new $42.4 billion unfunded federal mandate on the state of Pennsylvania and would plunge at least 244,000 Pennsylvania seniors into poverty. [Institute for America's Future, April 2005]
Women in Pennsylvania Would Be Hard Hit If Social Security Were Privatized, With Widow's Benefit Dropping $4,884 Per Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "The
typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Pennsylvania
receives $904 per month ($10,848 per year). According to the
Congressional Budget Office, under Plan 2 of the President's Commission
to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergarteners are projected to
receive 45% less than they are promised under current law, even when
the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. If
such a benefit cut were to take effect currently, the typical widow in
Pennsylvania would receive only $497 per month ($5,964 per year), an
amount equal to only 69% of the poverty line. [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]
IMPACT OF WORKER SAFETY ON PENNSYLVANIA:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vigorously Opposed Occupational Safety Regulations.
In an article written between the initial bill supported by President
Johnson and the second bill, that passed, supported by President Nixon,
the New York Times reported: "The first legislation providing for a
comprehensive nationwide system of health and safety standards was
proposed last year by President Johnson. Strongly supported by labor,
the bill ran into immediate and vigorous opposition from industry, led
by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States." [New York Times, 12/10/69]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce "led the fight to defeat the 1968 bill." [New York Times, 3/19/70]
U.S. Chamber Argued That OSHA Was a Failure. In
1979, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce charged "that the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration had failed to reduce worker injuries
and illnesses significantly since its inception in 1970." Mark De
Bernardo of the Chamber wrote, "In the wake of piles of more O.S.H.A.
rules and paperwork, fatal injuries on the job soared by more than 24
percent from 1976 to 1977." [New York Times, 8/27/79]
U.S. Chamber Spokesman Said OSHA Is a "Blatant Denial of Fundamental Fairness."
When describing the structure of the Labor Department within the
Executive Branch rather than the Judicial Branch of the government,
Richard Berman, then director of labor law for the United States Chamber of Commerce, said "This
has a chilling effect on an employer's exercise of his right to appeal
and is thus a blatant denial of fundamental fairness."
Berman now runs the Center for Union Facts, a corporate front group
trying to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. [U.S. News & World
Report, 11/24/75; New York Times, 1/9/09]
In 2007, 220 Workplace Fatalities Were Reported in Pennsylvania. In 2007, 220 Pennsylvanians reportedly died as a result of workplace injuries. [BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2007]
