With Labor Day right around the corner, we wanted to catch you up on what SEIU and our allies have been up to over the last few weeks. From opposition groups confusing their Congressmen to new studies and reports from the states, keep reading for a full recess round-up on Employee Free Choice.

Note to Michigan Anti-Free Choice Group: Next Time, Try Wikipedia? The Jackson Patriot, a local Michigan paper, reported in August about an interesting situation that the Michigan Manufacturers recently found themselves in. "Recently, a billboard went up along Boardman Road, visible from I-94, to urge Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act. Some smart guy realized that even though Peterson represents the 7th Congressional District, this is Michigan, and painted over the last two letters in his name. So now it urges U.S. Rep. Gary Peters to vote no. Right state this time, still the wrong Congressman. Eventually, I'm guessing the Michigan Manufacturers Association will want the billboard it paid for to urge U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, who represents Michigan's 7th Congressional District, to vote against the union-backed legislation."

New York Times: Low Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. A new study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers" based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, shows that low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. Furthermore, "One in five workers reported having lodged a complaint about wages to their employer or trying to form a union in the previous year, and 43 percent of them said they had experienced some form of illegal retaliation, like firing or suspension, the study said." Read the full article here.

Exposed: MT Hair Salons Denying Workers A Right To A Union Before They Are Formed. As reported in both the Great Falls Tribune and The New York Times, a former manager of a hair salon in Great Falls came forward with her story about Regis Corporation asking its employees to sign documents nullifying any union cards they may sign in a future organizing campaign. While Regis claims the cards are being circulated to protect workers' rights to a secret ballot election, the former manager, Keri Gorder said, "I thought it was taking our right away before we ever exercised that right." And a leading labor expert described this tactic as illegal. Read more about it here: and here.

Labor Day List: Partnerships That Work. This week, ARAW released their yearly showcase of employers who "walk the walk when it comes to respecting their own workers' rights, and now they are going a step further by standing up on behalf of all U.S. workers. Every business profiled herein has spoken out on the need for meaningful labor law reform to ensure men and women have decent opportunities and their rights protected." These businesses include: American Income Life Insurance Company, Ivory Leathers, Inc, McGuire Scenic, Morton Williams Supermarkets, Print and Copy Center, Raymond's Painting and Decorating, West Sheet Metal Company, and Wisconsin Vision, Inc. See the full list of employers that have a successful relationships with their employee's labor unions.

No Coercion in Majority Sign-up. In their "Economic Snapshot" for the week of August 19th, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) focused in on a lack of evidence of how majority sign-up or "card check" leads to coercion. Although Employee Free Choice opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud, a recent report, however, "suggests that this claim is frivolous." In fact, "a study of four states--Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and New York--that have had majority sign-up for public sector employees for many years failed to turn up a single meritorious case of coercion or fraud in more than 1,000 majority sign-up campaigns involving 34,000 employees between 2003 and 2009." More here.

Young Workers: A Lost Decade. In a new nationwide survey of young workers released earlier this week, the AFL-CIO found that more than one in three young workers say they are currently living at home with their parents, 31 percent of young workers reports being uninsured, up from 24 percent without health insurance coverage 10 years ago, and one-third of young workers cannot pay the bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses. Full report here; read more about the survey here.

ARAW Employee Free Choice Lobby Day. Next week, over 200 progressive activists from 15 states--including small business owners, faith leaders, veterans, farmers and students will travel to Washington and meet with their members of Congress to discuss the reasons we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

If you would like more information about next week's lobby day, please let us know.

A new report from the AFL-CIO shows some stunning statistics about young workers.

• More than one in three young workers say they are currently living at home with their parents.
• 31 percent of young workers reports being uninsured, up from 24 percent without health insurance coverage 10 years ago.
• One-third of young workers cannot pay the bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses.

And perhaps the most telling finding:

When asked who is most responsible for the country's economic woes, close to 60 percent of young workers place the blame on Wall Street and banks or corporate CEOs.

It's clear that young workers need change now. We need to hold corporate greed accountable and help young workers - and anyone else who works for a living - get back on track. We can do it with the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Economic Policy Institute posted yesterday a recent study that shows literally no coercion in majority sign-up. You can read the meat of the survey here, but the graph says it all.

That's 1,073 majority sign-up campaigns with 5 complaints, 0 of which were found to have any merit.

So when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tries its scare tactics, remember: it's corporations that coerce and intimidate workers who want to join unions. Anything else is just simply not true.

It seems the corporate fellas over at the National Association of Manufacturers are a bit confused about the difference between free speech and breaking the law as it relates to the Employee Free Choice Act.

This week we criticized a NAM adviser who defended corporate lawlessness on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The adviser found virtually no fault with intimidating threats, and complained that corporations wouldn't be able to stop employees from joining unions without punishment. NAM responded to our criticism, raising the false specter of corporations "who express their opinions [being] punished for that expression."

Except the Employee Free Choice Act says no such thing. Indeed, as we noted yesterday, the bill specifically sets out to punish corporations that WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law.

Let's take this difference for a simple exercise in which a boss talks to an employee about buying an apple.

Statement one: "I don't think you should buy that apple."

That's free speech!

Statement two: "If you think about buying that apple, I'll fire you from your job, you'll lose your health insurance, and we might move the apple overseas."

That would be breaking the law!

You see, there's a big difference between free speech and intimidation. One is OK. The other is against the law. The Employee Free Choice Act seeks to put teeth into the law so that when it's willfully or repeatedly broken, corporations can be punished for doing so - just like any other person who breaks any other law.

So, unless NAM is concerned its members will WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law, there's nothing to be worry about. Right, NAM?

Since Andy Stern kicked off our campaign this week, more than 10,000 people signed our petition in support of majority signup - but we still need to hear from you.

Next week SEIU members will deliver our petition to the senators working on the Employee Free Choice Act. We want at least 15,000 people to show support for majority signup before we go to Congress.

Can you help us reach 15,000 signatures and add your name to the petition? Click here to sign.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It's the best way to make sure workers have a free and fair choice to join a union without intimidation or harassment.

Thank you for your support. We'll be in touch again when our members deliver the petition.

On the on the heels of recent news that reports a bill version of the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate may not include majority sign-up provisions, we thought we'd revisit why we need this provision included in legislation to restore giving workers the actual choice of whether they want union representation.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. And the public agrees: three-quarters (75%) of adults favor allowing workers to have a union once a majority of the employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating that they want to form a union, including 44% who strongly support the idea. [Hart Research Associates, 1/8/09 ]

One of the most common scare tactics corporate special interests continue to use to try and stop the Employee Free Choice Act is the charge that majority signup is baaaaad for workers because it makes them feel pressured or coerced into signing cards. To those opponents we say: check your facts. Academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process.

During NLRB elections, 46 percent of workers complained of pressure from management. In contrast, during majority signup campaigns, only 4.6 percent of workers who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card. [Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D. of Rutgers University, and Jill Kriesky of Wheeling Jesuit University, Fact Over Fiction: Opposition to Card Check Doesn't Add Up, 9/06]

So, where's the controversy? "As negotiations on the Employee Free Choice Act continue in Congress, members need only look at public opinion to realize the only controversy over majority signup is being fabricated by a vocal, well financed, factually-challenged minority led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart," said Tom McMahon, Executive Director of Americans United for Change in a statement today.

There's no debate among working people in this country that the system is badly broken for the 60 million workers who would form a union tomorrow if they could. The current labor system is no longer effectively protecting and enforcing workers' rights in the election process. It has become a system that allows big business and corporate special interests to routinely harass, intimidate and even fire workers who try to form a union and bargain for better pay and benefits and a voice on the job. "These Corporate special interests will continue to say or do anything to keep the system broken, but when three-quarters of the American people agree majority signup is central to labor reform and building a strong economic foundation for our disappearing middle-class, Congress really doesn't have to listen," says McMahon. We couldn't agree more.

Majority signup is a democratic, proven approach that allows workers to have a fair, direct path to join unions--and it's important that both the House and Senate consider this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

Please add your name to the petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

In response to today's New York Times piece on the Employee Free Choice Act, SEIU President Andy Stern issued the following statement:

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.

We took a look at what would happen if the U.S. Chamber had its way, and how those policies would impact certain states.

SEIU's activists in these states are faxing their senators asking them to stand with working people, not the greedy CEOs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Below is the email sent to activists in Arkansas.

Check out our reports on Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

It's hard to imagine how things could be worse these days: between unemployment, the financial crisis, and the state of health care, it's no secret that Arkansas is hurting.

But if you can believe it, there's a group that continues to fight ways to improve the lives of Arkansans. For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done all it can to stop working people in Arkansas from getting ahead.

Click here to write to Senators Lincoln and Pryor and tell them to listen to the needs of working people, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

What would Arkansas look like if the U.S. Chamber got its way through the years? The picture isn't pretty.

• U.S. Chamber opposed the minimum wage hike in 2007. About $32.6 million would be generated for 221,000 Arkansans resulting from the 2007 schedule for minimum wage increases, research shows. The U.S. Chamber says they have "consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage."


• U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand health care coverage for children. 45,800 Arkansas children would gain from the 2009 health care initiatives, studies indicate. The U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand health care coverage for millions of uninsured children, including 66,000 in Arkansas alone.


• U.S. Chamber consistently defends outsourcing jobs. 62,200 Arkansas jobs were lost to outsourcing in 2007 alone. The U.S. Chamber says that there are "legitimate values in outsourcing" and that Americans are "short of skills."

Just like they're going all out to stop health care reform, the U.S. Chamber is doing anything it can to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act -- yesterday, their lead lobbyist warned of "Armageddon on Capitol Hill."

Click here to write to Senators Lincoln and Pryor and tell them to listen to working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Why should Senators Lincoln and Pryor listen to the same people who've tried to consistently hurt Arkansas families? We need to make sure our senators know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have the best interests of our state in mind: just those of the same greedy CEOs that hurt our economy in the first place.

Click here to send a message to our senators now. Your voice can make the difference.

In solidarity,

Nicole Price
Arkansas Change that Works

"I just became a cosponsor of my first bill in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act," the Minnesota Democrat declared at a gathering at the AFL-CIO on Tuesday evening.

In recent Wal-Mart news, a really disturbing precedent: A Canadian court overturned the UFCW certification granted to Wal-Mart workers in December 2008, keeping alive a five-year-old battle between Wal-Mart and the union.

Workers in Saskatchewan, Canada first voted for union representation over four years ago, and Wal-Mart stalled and threw up every road block they could to keep the workers from getting a fair deal. And now, a Canadian judge has essentially ruled that because labor laws have changed since the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers legally won union representation, these workers are no longer represented by a union. According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the UFCW applied for union certification in 2004 after a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit signed union cards. A vote by secret ballot was not required under labor laws in effect at that time. Changes to provincial labor law implemented in May 2008 now require a vote by secret ballot to certify a union--and Justice Peter Foley ruled this past week that the labor relations board erred in certifying the union at the Wayburn Wal-Mart.

Kevin Groh, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said workers now employed at the store "cheered" when they were told of the latest court ruling. This seems like an odd reaction, since Wal-Mart is not exactly known for offering generous salaries. Business Week reported in April, 2008, that Wal-Mart workers earn an average of $22,500 annually. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the threshold of poverty in 2006 for a family of four was $21,200.

In this dismal economy, low-wage workers are struggling more than ever to make ends meet. If they had a union, these Wal-Mart employees would be able to negotiate better health benefits, working conditions, and wages above the poverty line. This issue also speaks to the greater problem of the long and arduous process workers are forced to endure to gain union representation and a first contract. Our current labor system for workers trying to form a union has proven its inability to defend workers' rights in a timely manner time and time again. Sadly enough, the 4+ years these Wal-Mart workers endured in their fight for a union is not uncommon. Two years after first voting to form a union, a whopping 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

What do you think of this ruling? Was the Canadian court's decision to overturn the UFCW certification justified?

Republicans pursue failed strategy attacking Dems on Employee Free Choice

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is planning on going after Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), according to a Roll Call article today. Yet the NRSC seems to have already forgotten the lessons of the 2008 campaigns, in which groups spent millions attacking Democrats on Employee Free Choice only to see those candidates go on to win--with voters approving Employee Free Choice by a considerable margin.

"We thought elephants never forgot, but Republicans have clearly forgotten the lessons of the 2008 elections: attacking Democrats on Employee Free Choice simply doesn't work," said SEIU Political Director Jon Youngdahl. "The fact is, voters see through these misinformation campaigns by wealthy corporate lobbyists. Working families know that when it comes to protecting their jobs and giving them a voice in the workplace, greedy CEOs just aren't on their side."

In 2008, Opponents Spent Millions Attacking Democratic Candidates, But the Democrats Still Won and the Voters Still Supported EFCA

In 2008, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and front groups like Americans for Job Security, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and the Employee Freedom Action Fund spent upwards of $20 million to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. This includes more than $6.3 million on TV ads specifically targeting Democratic Senate candidates on the issue in battleground states.

These attacks were completely ineffective. Not only were six of the targeted Democratic candidates elected, but research shows that a majority of voters in these battleground states supported the Employee Free Choice Act by wide margins even after the millions spent by the bill's opponents. A Hart Research survey conducted in November in seven Senate battleground states where anti-Employee Free Choice ads ran found that voters supported the Employee Free Choice Act by a 27-point margin.

You may remember Rick Berman from such corporate farces as, "Pesticides: Kids Love 'Em!" and "Second Hand Smoke: You Have Two Lungs for a Reason." Now get ready for the latest episode in Rick Berman's corporate hackery: planting a former employee and Wal-Mart lobbyist as a "Democrat against the Employee Free Choice Act."

Here's Ken Silverstein in Harpers today on the discovery of the plant:

The Orlando Sentinel ran an item Monday, "Growing Number of Dems Opposing EFCA," which cited a political consultant named Joe Kefauver and another local political official -- "both longtime Democrats who supported Obama" -- as being stern opponents of EFCA, with Kefauver adding that support for organized labor shouldn't be the only "litmus test for being a good Democrat." The article was instantly posted on a website run by Berman's Center for Union Facts.

What the article didn't mention is that Kefauver has long and close ties to Berman. The most recently available public disclosure forms list Kefauver as both a director of Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, and as a compensated "director of development" for Berman's Employment Policies Institute Foundation. Berman and Company has also paid Kefauver's firm for consulting services.

Up until early-2007, Kefauver was in charge of all of Wal-Mart's state-level lobbying efforts in Florida. "Joe was responsible for prioritizing and developing the company's legislative and political agenda, their interaction with Governors, Attorneys General, Mayors and legislative leaders, as well as executing the company's aggressive store expansion program," says his firm's website. Wal-Mart is one of the vocal corporate opponents of EFCA.

Oops. Better luck next time, Rick.

Thanks to SouthernStudies.org for the find.

Image of potted plant used under Creative Commons license from Flickr user erix!

As the first 100 days of the Obama administration draw to a close, there has certainly been no shortage of unhinged and outrageous media moments. Our friends over at Media Matters are asking online readers to watch a selection of the most outrageous media moments from the first 100 days, and vote for which you think is the worst.

For us, the winner here is pretty clear...anyone remember when a certain outspoken "leader" of the leader of the Republican Party had these words to say about Employee Free Choice in mid-March?

"One day, Tony Soprano will walk in with a lead pipe and he will start beating people upside the head to vote to unionize."

VOTE for Rush Limbaugh on Employee Free Choice as the worst of Obama's 100 days at Media Matters (5th one down): http://mediamatters.org/action_center/100days/

(Video and the rest below).

After all, who better to emphasize with the struggles of the American worker than Rush, with all his personal experience living his life in a studio? One reader comments over at Media Matters:

"That's right, Rush- because there's nothing the American worker loathes more than the right to organize and negotiate for better wages, safer working conditions, health care, etc. as a group rather than as an individual."

Rush Limbaugh's absurd and inaccurate description of the Employee Free Choice Act--legislation designed to protect workers from intimidation--makes this moment our hands-down #1 choice for the most outrageous media moment.

Vote for Rush at Media Matters here.

Tags: card check, employee free choice act, media matters, president obama, Rush Limbaugh, tony soprano, unionize