L ast night MSNBC's Rachel Maddow took on the radical right-wingers seeking to silence working families by attacking progressive community organizations. As part of that segment, she discussed with Peter Dreier, professor of politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles, why they're trying to target the SEIU next.

Watch the clip here:

You can watch the entire segment right here.

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.

Corporate groups are expanding their attack on working people and the Employee Free Choice Act. The latest volley? Defending the status quo of ineffective penalties for when corporations break the law. Yeah, they went there.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, John Irving, an adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers, advocates for the current toothless system that allows corporations to get off scot-free when they break the law. Irving helpfully explains just how toothless the current system is:

For example, employers who might sincerely assert to their employees that "unions cause plant shutdowns" or "could cause loss of customers" may or may not be exercising lawful free speech, depending on the views of the labor board at the time. If employers fall afoul of the law today, they face only nonpunitive "make-whole" and "cease and desist" sanctions. [...]

There is no provision in current law for punitive fines and treble damages. Nor is there any requirement, as there would be under EFCA, that nondiscretionary injunctions be sought against employers based solely upon the NLRB general counsel's determination of "reasonable cause."

What does that mean? Irving finds virtually no fault in intimidating threats, and is supportive of the fact that one of the most severe penalty employers face is to say they won't do it again. One of the most "severe" penalties corporations face when they break the law is to post a notice in the workplace saying they broke the law and promise to never do it again - presumably with their fingers crossed.

Irving then goes on to explain just what the Employee Free Choice Act would do for corporations that break the law:

But EFCA dramatically escalates these penalties. Under the new bill, the employer could be subject to a $20,000 fine for each questionable statement, and to near-automatic injunction proceedings based on union-filed unfair labor practice charges.

Hearing Irving complain about increased penalties for when corporations break the law is like hearing Bear Sterns complain about collapsing after its own actions led to its demise. Give me a break.

Besides, we need only look to the text of the Employee Free Choice Act to understand these proposed penalties:

"Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice ... while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized ... until the first collective bargaining contract ... shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation.

In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest."

There you have it - these penalties are intended to punish corporations that WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law. Once again, we have corporations trying to say they're above the law and shouldn't be punished for breaking it.

This is the reality workers face when they try to join a union:

About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.

That is unacceptable, but it's what workers face every day in this country. If corporations break the law, they need to be held accountable. That's why it's so important to protect strong penalties in the Employee Free Choice Act. Don't let corporate groups talk their way out of this one - it's time corporations get the message that it's not OK to break the law.

When was the last time you got a paycheck for $9,600?

If it was last pay period, the health care reform bill in Congress may not be for you. But if you're one of the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 every year, you stand to save a lot of money.

The health care reform bill being voted on in the House this week will save you up to$2,200 per year. It would have people who make more than a quarter of a million dollars help pay for reform by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

The bill is headed for a vote in the next 48 hours. Click here to write a letter to your representative and urge them to pass historic health reform so you can save money.

For decades, giant corporations have refused to pay their fair share of rising health care costs. All the while, workers, small business owners, and our families have picked up their tab.

We can change that. But we've got to act now. Click here to tell Congress it's time everyone - even millionaires - did their part to fix health care.

This bill guarantees us quality, affordable health care. It will cover the uninsured and significantly lower the costs for those of us who have insurance. Let's pass this bill, so we can lower ours.

Today's increase means a full-time minimum wage earner will receive $28 more a week. This raise is badly needed. It is also categorically insufficient.

While our nation's plunge into recession has forced many working families to tighten their belts, low-wage workers have fared even worse. The decade between 1997 and 2007 was the longest period in history without a minimum wage increase--but even with this wage hike, minimum wage workers will still make less than they did in 1956, after adjusting for inflation.

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King said, "We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life." How is it possible that his statement would still ring true 40 years later? Recent raises are so little, so late that even with the increase, America's minimum wage is still 17 percent lower than its peak in 1968. In fact, it would take $9.83 today to match the buying power of the minimum wage of 1968.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimates that some 10 million workers--those at the minimum wage or just above it--will benefit from the increase. But the facts remain that an individual earning $7.25 an hour in a standard 2,000-hour work year would earn $14,500 per year...a salary which is still slightly below the 2009 federal poverty level for a family of two. While corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, workers are not getting . As the minimum wage fell 22% in real dollars from 1973 to 2007, corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, jumping more than 50% during the same time period. Statistics like these just reinforce that sad reality that although Americans are working harder than ever, they are not reaping the fair share of the profits their labor work is creating.

Although the federal minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour reflects a growing understanding that workers face enormous financial burdens, it's not nearly enough. A NY Times editorial points out: "The latest increase will slow the decline in living standards, but it doesn't reverse the overall downward pull." But it doesn't have to be this way, says SEIU's Anna Burger:

"For millions of hardworking Americans, their only opportunity for a raise is controlled by which way the political wind blows in Washington...Congress must pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow workers to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and benefits to ensure that millions more Americans have good jobs with real benefits and a pathway to the middle class."

It's time to break the cycle of too little, too late raises. We can't build a strong, sustainable economy if a growing share of business revenue continues to go to executive pay and profits--we need to level the playing field. The thousands of people who have already taken action know that majority sign-up is still, bar none, the fairest way for workers to negotiate for better job security and wages.

It's important that both the House and the Senate see how much support there is for majority sign-up and the Employee Free Choice Act--so please add your name to the petition today.

Workers join together and unionize to improve their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Yet a full year after voting to form a union, 52 percent of new unions still haven't been able to secure any improvements because their employers have used delay tactics to avoid signing a first contract.

It stands to reason that if a majority of workers vote to form a union in their workplace, then a union they shall have! Yet the sad reality is that all too often, employers do not respect the outcomes of union elections. The current labor law is grossly slanted in favor of employers and anti-union corporations who engage in unproductive "bad faith bargaining" or delay tactics to keep workers from getting a fair deal. The resistance to collective bargaining has only gotten worse in recent years. Even in cases when workers do successfully win their union election, over half of of new unions still have no contract one full year later after they are certified because companies refuse to negotiate in good faith. And two years later, 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

Congress needs to stand up for the workers who deserve the chance to gain fair first contracts. As a new ad by American Rights at Work points out, any legislation to reform our current labor system must include an arbitration option to push management to complete negotiations in a fair, timely manner---and stop anti-union corporations from gaming the system.

This is the third ad in the series by ARAW making the case for arbitration as a critical part of the Employee Free Choice Act. The ad will run in Roll Call, The Hill, Politico and CQ. Read more about ARAW's ad campaign and view their first two ads here.

The "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract. The legislation says that if employers and workers can't reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time--120 days--either side can bring in a neutral, private-sector arbitrator to settle the dispute.

In March of this year, the Chamber of Commerce called Consumer Arbitration, "Fair, Inexpensive, and Unbiased."
Many corporations--like the Chamber-- are happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest, and put arbitration provisions into 75 percent of consumer contracts.

But when it comes to creating a contract that works for workers, companies often refuse to negotiate a first agreement, or use stall tactics and gimmicks to delay the process for years. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts--and will use any tactic they can to avoid paying their employees better wages and benefits.

Under the NLRA, 44 percent of new unions still don't have contracts two years after they are certified because companies refuse to even negotiate in good faith. 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. Supporters of the freedom to form unions are fed up with delays that favor employees, and American Rights at Work has launched a campaign to point out the hypocrisy of Big Business on arbitration.

American Rights at Work launched their first print ad last week demonstrating how corporations are attacking the idea of arbitration when it involves their employees--while supporting arbitration in a variety of areas where it benefits them. Today, the second print ad in their series is out. Here's a preview of the ad that is running in Politico, CQ, Roll Call & The Hill:

Ad text:

Big Business is happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest. But when it comes to negotiating contracts with their workers, Big Business would rather use delay tactics to avoid paying better wages and benefits. It's only fair that corporations agree to arbitration for workers who are trying to negotiate a first contract after forming a union. Arbitration is a key part of the Employee Free Choice Act that will let both sides reach a fair agreement.

Check out the newest arbitration ad here. ARAW also has a great fact sheet on arbitration here.

Yesterday SEIU launched an online campaign asking senators to stand with working people, not greedy CEOs, on the Employee Free Choice Act.  The Huffington Post wrote of our campaign:

One of the nation's largest unions is making a significant ad purchase targeting four Democrats and one Republican Senator on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Targeting Democratic Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jim Webb of Virginia, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, the message is at once effective and sharp: To oppose the labor-backed legislation would be to side with the institutions that create the current economic malaise.

In addition to putting out the four web videos, the SEIU is also launching email campaigns targeting the five senators, with much the same message and aim.
The email campaign mirrored the below message sent to our Arkansas activists; you can see all the ads below.

Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, stand with Arkansas' working people, not greedy CEOs

Arkansas

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Some of the biggest corporations in America are lining up to fight Pennsylvania's working people. They're spending millions of dollars - some of it your tax dollars from the bailouts! - to stop corporations from being held accountable.

Join us - tell Sen. Specter to stand with Pennsylvania's hard-working families and support the Employee Free Choice Act.

They think that they can send in CEOs to make Senator Specter forget about working people. With your help, we can make sure that doesn't happen...but we need your help right now.

Tell Senator Specter to stand with working families and support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Worst Companies for Union Organizing Highlighted for International Human Rights Day

From the International Labor Rights Forum:

Adopted on this day sixty years ago, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests," (Article 23, Section 4). As human rights advocates around the world celebrate International Human Rights Day, the International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) has released "Working for Scrooge: 5 Worst Companies for the Right to Associate," a list of the five worst multinational corporations for union organizing.

One particularly sad and shocking statistics (among many) in this survey: the ILRF reports "at least 91 unionists were killed globally as a result of their organizing efforts in 2007."

The companies on this year's list of the 2008 five worst multinational corporations for union organizing include:

• Wal-Mart - for violating worker rights in the USA, Canada and elsewhere.
• Nestle - for violations in the Philippines, Colombia, Peru, Russia and Pakistan.
• Del Monte - for violations in Guatemala and the Philippines.
• Dole - for violations in the Philippines, Costa Rica and Colombia.
• Russell/Fruit of the Loom - for violations in Honduras and Uzbekistan.

Read the full report here.

*Top offenders selected on the basis of their ties to violence against trade unions and suppression of the universal right to organize.