Many consumers assume that if a car is "American-made," it must have been built by union-represented workers. Not true. The UAW has prepared a guide to provide information for consumers who want to purchase vehicles produced by workers who enjoy the benefits and protections of a union contract. The 2010 list includes cars, trucks, pickups, vans, SUVs and crossovers from U.S., European and Asian-based carmakers. Check out the 2010 car buying guide here.

Buying Union-made: It's still difficult to find sweatshop-free and fairly traded merchandise in the U.S., but there are viable options if you care about fair trade products. For example, Union Made in USA merchandise is widely considered the platinum standard for consumers in the U.S. And while shopping can feel more like a forbidden past time or guilty pleasure in this economy, buying the Union label is something you can feel good about. Because you're not just getting a high-quality product--you're also supporting local economies, helping maintain middle class manufacturing jobs, and propping up responsible companies that employ workers at fair wages.

The union label is a badge of quality, workplace justice, and living wage--check out a selection of tees over at Ethix Merch here. Additionally, the SweatFree Communities and International Labor Rights Forum has a great 2009 Shop with a Conscience Consumer Guide on their website to key resource to help you become a socially conscious shopper.

The guide profiles clothing companies whose products are created in a "sweat-free" environment and clothing made in shops where workers are organized into unions (or worker-owned cooperatives) and have a voice on the job in determining their wages and working conditions (like Justice Clothing and No Sweat Apparel). My personal favorite from the guide is Autonomie Project, a store that offers some really creative, stylish t-shirts and accessories that are eco-friendly along with being sweatshop-free. Their new line of babies/children's apparel--especially the logo tees, like the one to the right--really stand out from the crowd.

For a guide to both union Made and fair Trade products, don't forget to visit the 2009 Shop With a Conscience Consumer Guide here. UAW's car-buying guide can be found here.

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.

Last night in St. Louis, a Reverend and SEIU member was assaulted at a town hall dedicated to discussing our national healthcare crisis. The incident is being spun by GOP operatives as SEIU thug violence--which couldn't be further from the truth.

The SEIU Missouri State Council released a statement from Executive Director Brandon Davis today:

[...] The Reverend, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, and others who attended in hopes of a peaceful dialogue about our nation's healthcare crisis, endured the latest attempt by right-wing fringe groups to hijack the democratic process through violence if necessary. Last night, the Teabaggers' violent tactics broke and dislocated the shoulder of the Reverend.

"Let's be clear: These groups, backed by insurance companies and corporate front groups, want nothing more than to preserve the status quo system of rationing, where HMOs choose doctors, and insurance companies deny us the care we need. Their dearest hope is that by resorting to outrageous charges of Nazism and euthanasia, they can make the American public too afraid to support real reform.

"But SEIU and hardworking women and men all over this country are standing up to their bullying tactics. We deserve a national conversation about how we will fix our failing healthcare system and help make this an economy that works for everyone."

Read the full statement here. Watch the video with footage from these events here.

Paul Begala has an incredibly powerful and persuasive op-ed in Politico today making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. After introducing nightmare hypothetical scenarios of workers getting fired for trying to organize, Begala pulls back the curtain and reveals the stories are about real workers who were fighting for better jobs.

All of these stories are absolutely true. The stories of Trish Miechur, the CNA, and Corey Kresse, the metalworker, are replicated in boardrooms and factories across America. The story of Ken Lewis, Bank of America's CEO? Well, that's a familiar one, too. So here's the question: Why are their experiences so different? Whom do we want our economic policies to benefit?

For eight years under the GOP, economic policy gave CEOs such as Ken Lewis the gold mine, while giving hardworking, middle-class Americans such as Trish and Corey the shaft. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected to change that, and protecting employees from corporate abuses is part of the change we need. That's what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Corporate lobbyists say the phrase "Employee Free Choice Act" as though it were a curse. But for Trish and Corey, it's a blessing. The point of the Employee Free Choice Act is to say that we've had enough of an economy that works for Ken Lewis -- and Bernie Madoff, for that matter. We want an economy that works for Trish Miechur and Corey Kresse.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers an opportunity to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and health care at a time of astounding corporate greed. The legislation has three main parts: 1) It says that when a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so -- a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests; 2) it penalizes employers who try to fire or harass workers for attempting to form a union; and 3) it says that once workers have voted for a union, employers have to come to agreement with workers on a contract. Simple stuff, right?

So why are corporate interests squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Maybe because they're the only ones who prospered under the Bush-Lewis-Madoff policies.

As of now, it's unclear when the Employee Free Choice Act will be given a vote in Congress. Recent press stories, based largely around anonymous comments from Democratic aides, has suggested that it is unlikely the bill will get a vote any time soon--and especially not prior to the completion of healthcare reform.

But legislative delays don't diminish the moral and economic imperative for sweeping labor reform and as a result, we must continue to call on Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act with majority sign-up. As Begala notes, this popular piece of legislation will get America's economy moving again, so we have no time to lose.

With a future body count guaranteed to make it a horror film classic, the new California state budget approved by legislators on Friday puts an end to the endless "debate" that's been causing debilitating migraines even in those who don't suffer them.

But the pain is far from over. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his band of loyal lawmakers proved they're no 'girlie-men' with the budget cuts by taking healthcare from the sick and frail and every kind of care from the elderly; by closing schools so kids have nowhere to learn, and after-school programs so they have nowhere else to go. They closed the deficit by privatizing public services and throwing public servants under the bus, while taking money with impudence from those who remain. And if you thought these outcomes were shocking, here's the most shocking thing of all: CA lawmakers managed all of this without taxing corporations one single additional dime.

And no doubt the heads of those corporations will be spending this glorious, victorious weekend with Governor Arnold in his hot tub, smoking their cigars.

The difference
Rapid action by members of SEIU Local 1021, Local 1000 and all the California locals, together with the communities they serve, prevented the outcome of the budget deal from being much worse. "While we don't like the outcome [of this budget], had we not gotten involved it would have been much worse," said SEIU executive vice president Eliseo Medina.

Working closely in collaboration with communities and allies, scores of public events were held all over the state that put a human face on the cuts to home care, health care, CalWORKS, schools, and other public services. All together, SEIU members made 40,000 calls to the Governor and legislators, took part in 400-plus lobby days and sent 100,000 petitions and postcards. The most dramatic difference these efforts made is that new revenues are finally on the table and, against the odds, even made it into the Conference Committee budget. And more significantly, SEIU members, CA activists and allies helped scale back (and lessen in severity) the Governor's worst cuts:

• Home care: In-home Supportive Services (IHSS) will be cut by 20 percent instead of 90 percent.
  
• CalWORKS will be cut 40 percent instead of eliminated entirely.
  
• Healthy Families: The Governor wanted to eliminate the program entirely - instead, it was cut by 50 percent.
  
• Education: Despite deep cuts to education, Proposition 98 was not suspended and legislative safeguards on school outsourcing were protected.
  
• State workers: Workers' pensions and health care were protected, and a fourth furlough day has not been issued like Governor Schwarzenegger threatened.

As California confronts severe budget difficulties in coming months, the war of words, lobby days and public actions are far from over. Middle-class families will continue to challenge state leaders to provide a common sense, balanced approach--even when it requires that our leaders have the courage to stand up to powerful corporate interests. More news and reports on the CA budget can be found from Rough & Tumble and California Budget Project.

Thanks to SEIU Local 1021 for this budget update.

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.

A new report released by SEIU today shows that Bank of America has cut small business loans made through the Small Business Administration (SBA) 7(a) program - despite taking billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts meant to stimulate the economy.

At a time when the failure rate of small businesses has been on the rise, Bank of America has - and continues - to reduce the amount it lends in SBA loans while increasing higher-interest credit card lending to small businesses. The result is less capital to support struggling small businesses and boost the economy.

Here's a quick look at the facts about Small Business Loans at the Bank of America.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Lending to Small Businesses AFTER Taking Billions in Bailout Money to Stimulate the Economy - Latest Cuts Came on Top of Years of Decreased Lending

• Not only did Bank of America cut small business lending after taking billions in bailout funds, but the bank lent out significantly less money to small businesses than many of its top competitors - under the SBA 7(a) program the Small Business Administration's main loan program.
• The average loan amount was comparatively small. In FY 2008, the average loan amount for all SBA 7(a) lenders was $182,492. At Bank of America, the average loan amount was only $31,032.

FACT: Bank of America Cut SBA 7(a) Loans by 90 percent -- Twice the National Average

• Over the past two years, Bank of America's small business lending has decreased from more than 10,000 SBA 7(a) loans to fewer than 500. The greatest decline occurred after the bank received bailout funds last October -- money intended to jump start lending.
• In the first seven months of FY 2009 (October-April), the bank made only 241 loans through the SBA 7(a) program, worth a total of $10 million. In the same time period last year, the bank made 3,053 SBA 7(a) loans, worth $92 million.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Small Business Lending in States

• In FY 2007, Bank of America lent more than $335 million to small businesses in 44 states through the SBA 7(a) program. In the first seven months of FY 2009, the bank cut SBA 7(a) lending completely in 14 states.
• Cuts were most severe in states like Arkansas, where the bank made 49 SBA 7(a) loans worth $1.4 million in FY 2007, and made zero in the first seven months of FY 2009, and in three New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), where the bank went from making 109 loans worth $2.8 million in FY 2007 to zero to date in FY 2009.

FACT: Bank of America Pulled a Bait and Switch, Shifting Small Business Portfolio from Traditional Loans to Higher-Interest Credits Cards

• Instead of lending money to small businesses through SBA loans (with typical interest rates of 7-9%), Bank of America appears to be moving its small business clients to higher-interest credit card loans. (Credit cards typically charge small businesses 16-23%.)
• In 2007 (the most recent year for which this data is currently available), more than 75% of Bank of America's small business loans were made through FIA Card Services, its credit card division. Bank of America acquired FIA (previously called MBNA) in January 2006. FIA's small business loan volume increased nearly 400% between 2006 and 2007. The $6.3 billion increase in the bank's total small business lending between 2006 and 2007 came almost entirely from the bank's credit card division.

FACT: Bank of America Hurt Small Businesses and Shareholders with Risky Lending Practices

• Bank of America shifted its loan portfolio - favoring "Express Loans" with lower underwriting standards - despite the fact that these loans are guaranteed by the SBA at a lower rate and have been found more likely to default. From FY 2006 through FY 2008, more than 95% of Bank of America's SBA 7(a) lending was through the SBA Express program, saddling shareholders and communities with unnecessary risk.
• Reminiscent of the mortgage crisis, small business defaults have risen. In fall 2008, Bank of America announced that its small business default rate had doubled to match the national rate and possibly exceed it, going from 6% in 2007 to 12% (annualized) in 2008. Bank of America's Chief Financial Officer Joe Price described the bank's small business lending as performing more like consumer debt than commercial lending. CEO Ken Lewis more bluntly called Bank of America's SBA loan portfolio "a damn disaster."

Read and download the full report "Small Business Lending at Bank of America" here.

Today, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) will join Bank of America workers to speak out against predatory sales practices and a failed banking model and call for reforms that protect frontline bank workers and consumers.

Bank workers have had enough with the unrealistic sales decisions made at the top that hurt customers. But without a voice on the job and strong whistleblower protections, bank workers are unable to speak out publicly about being forced to push harmful products that lead to increased fees and financial traps for customers.

A story today in the AP quotes Stephen Lerner, who runs SEIU's financial reform project:

"One of the core parts of the economic collapse is a business model that encourages too much risk or short-term profit over long-term stability."

Lerner said employees under pressure to sell high-fee products ended up targeting vulnerable populations, including students and the elderly.

Rep. Ellison, SEIU, NACA, and U.S. PIRG will outline new protections for frontline bank workers to create a financial industry that puts consumers and the health of our overall economy ahead of quick profits for bank executives.

Stay tuned for how the call went later today.

"Name a successful unionized company. Think. You're gonna go to break before you come up with one."

Today, SEIU International President Andy Stern made the following statement in response to comments by New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin and MSNBC's "Morning Joe" cast on the effectiveness of unionized companies.

"Unionized companies are a driving force in our economy, from Kaiser Permanente to Securitas. The bigger question this country is really asking right now is how do we define a successful company? Is it a company that turns a profit by driving down employee wages successful?  Is cutting off benefits or putting people out of work to improve the bottom line for shareholders a business model we as Americans want to embrace? Are we going to embrace the Wal-Mart model as the standard of success, or are we going to raise the bar and rebuild the middle class in this country?

"We think it's time to have a serious national discussion about what we want the future of our economy to look like--and the voices of women and men who work are critical to that conversation.  That's why we're supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill to help create an economy in which companies succeed based on the quality of their services, not on their willingness to exploit or silence workers."

Change to Win released the results of the seventh in its ongoing series of American Dream surveys yesterday, measuring views on how strong majorities of working Americans view the economy, the role of government, the American Dream, and the action agenda that is at the heart of the new progressive majority.

The good news I was immediately struck with upon reading these survey results is that most working Americans believe the American Dream is still realistic... nearly two-thirds of working people surveyed said they believe the American Dream is a 'somewhat' or 'very realistic goal' for their family.

However, great economic distress and anxiety is taking its toll -- 58 percent of respondents believe it likely that a member of their family or someone they know will lose their job over the next year; 52 percent believe it likely that a member of their family or someone they know will lose their health insurance over that same period. Working Americans also specifically blame corporate greed and its stranglehold on government for the decline of the American Dream and they want Congress--which they rate poorly--to take action on the American Dream Agenda.

Time for action: 62 percent of respondents agree with the statement, "The time to act on health care, energy, and education is now. When we don't take action these problems get worse and cost much more," with just 30 percent taking the opposite position that "[w]e should not spend billions on major reforms in areas like health care, energy, and education unless we first stabilize the economy and can keep spending low."

In order to win over the emerging progressive majority among America's workers, Congress must implement an effective action agendathat includes cracking down on corporations that outsource good jobs (83 percent), creating a more progressive tax system (81 percent), encouraging and enforcing fairness in the workplace (83 percent), and providing quality, affordable health care (80 percent). "This is the year we make our elected officials accountable for the promises they made when we voted for them," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer and Change to Win chair Anna Burger.

* You can download the complete survey (PDF) conducted by Lake Research Partners, or a memo summarizing its findings (PDF) for more details. Summary of results from Change to Win's sixth American Dream Survey (released in Nov. 2008) can be viewed here.

Southside small business, workers, veterans and faith leaders show need for the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform

On Thursday, May 28, members of the Martinsville community joined together to show broad support for the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform. Martinsville has been hit hard by the recession, with 20% unemployment and health care coverage increasingly unaffordable. Against this community backdrop, Virginia Change that Works released a new report that detailing the urgent need for labor and health care reform in Virginia.

Martinsville small business owner Tony Millner said, "Now is the time to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Southside is hurting, and in this economy, giving workers the chance to level the playing field is exactly the right thing to do. It's time to create an economy where businesses succeed because they make great products, not because they pay their employees the least." A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that if only 5% more of Virginia's workers were union members, it would pump $947 million into the state's economy.

Martinsville resident Mary Minter spoke about her experience as she and other workers faced severe obstacles to joining a union. Additionally she said, "I am a union member, and if more workers had the chance to form a union, Southside would be better off. We are only going to turn this economy around if people are able to feel secure in their jobs, if they have enough money to pay the bills and spend more in stores around town."

Securing a fair contract in a reasonable amount of time is one of the basic principles of the Employee Free Choice Act. The report released in Martinsville shows that 47 percent of Virginia workers who form a union are unable to get a first contract. For those who do secure a contract, it took an average of 314 days between filing the election and a conclusion of the election process.

Southside residents also see the value of health care reform as health insurance premiums in Virginia increased by 82.5 percent from 2000 to 2007. Martinsville veteran Roy Carter said, "We can't afford to wait for health care reform. Veterans are having a hard time finding good jobs and getting affordable health coverage." Comprehensive health care reform, including a public insurance option, will save every individual over $7,000 in premium and out of pocket expenses over the next 10 years.

SEIU President Andy Stern will talk with broadcast journalist Charlie Rose tonight on his show at 11: 00 pm EST.

Charlie Rose airs on over 200 PBS affiliates throughout the United States, including New York, DC, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago. So check your local listings and be sure to tune in!

Update: Watch Andy Stern and Charlie Rose's frank discussion last night on the economic crisis and its impact on American workers here:

The stress test results came in last week and Bank of America was by far the biggest loser in the group. The Treasury announced that the bank needs an additional $33.9 billion to be able to survive a continued economic downturn - almost as much as the other 18 largest bailed-out U.S. financial institutions combined. But apparently, the preliminary stress test results had been even worse, and BofA had to negotiate with the government to get the number down to a piddly $33.9 billion.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the preliminary results had put BofA's shortfall at more than $50 billion! One analyst had estimated that the figure could be as high as $70 billion. The bank was "shocked" at the Treasury's initial figure and "negotiated" to have the number lowered by about $20 billion.

Of course this begs a question as to just how healthy BofA actually is. I mean, I've heard of accounting tricks, but I didn't know it was possible to knock off 30% of your capital shortfall through "negotiations". That's one hell of an accounting trick!

It reminds me of a movie I saw back in middle school: Clueless. In it, Alicia Silverstone, playing Beverly Hills teenager Cher Horowitz, is unsatisfied with her grades and embarks on a mission to get them changed. Only she doesn't do it by working harder or doing extra credit - she does it through her "powers of persuasion", from crying to one teacher about a made-up guy who broke her heart to helping another find true love. When she shows her litigator father her vastly improved report card several weeks later, he responds, "Honey, I couldn't be happier than if they were based on real grades."

Somehow I doubt taxpayers feel the same way about BofA's latest report card.

If you're in Charlotte, NC today, be on the lookout for this giant, moving billboard:

Make that three Nobel laureates in economics.

Joseph Stiglitz, an American economist, professor at Columbia University and Nobel laureate in economics, has added his name to the growing list of now-40 economists who endorsed the Employee Free Choice Act via a full-page ad in the Washington Post last week.

The 40 economists - three of whom have received the Nobel prize - have argued that one of the main reasons for our economic slump is the "erosion of workers' ability to form unions and bargain collectively," that shifted the wealth of our country from "broadly-shared prosperity" to "growing inequality."

You can read more about Joseph Stiglitz on his Wikipedia page, and learn more about the project of the Economic Policy Institute here.

UPDATE: Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has added his name to the ever-growing list of now-40 economists who support the Employee Free Choice Act. Read here: http://www.seiu.org/2009/03/joseph-stiglitz-nobel-laureate-in-economics-backs-employee-free-choice-act.php

Today, in a full page ad in the Washington Post, thirty-eight prominent American economists released a statement, entitled "Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is critical to rebuilding our economy and strengthening our democracy."

The economists - a group that includes two Nobel laureates in economics - argue that one of the main reasons for our economic slump is the "erosion of workers' ability to form unions and bargain collectively," that shifted the wealth of our country from "broadly-shared prosperity" to "growing inequality."

The ad continues:

"A rising tide lifts all boats only when labor and management bargain on relatively equal terms. In recent decades, most bargaining power has resided with management. The current recession will further weaken the ability of workers to bargain individually. More than ever, workers will need to act together."

"The Employee Free Choice Act is not a panacea, but it would restore some balance to our labor markets. As economists, we believe this is a critically important step in rebuilding our economy and strengthening our democracy by enhancing the voice of working people in the workplace."

The letter also overviews the central components of the Employee Free Choice Act, including a) majority signup, b) enforcement of labor laws, and c) discusses how first contract negotiations can be improved.

You can download the full ad here:

To note, the full list of economists includes:

• Henry J. Aaron, Brookings Institution
• Katharine Abraham, University of Maryland
• Philippe Aghion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Eileen Appelbaum, Rutgers University
• Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University
• Dean Baker, Center for Economic Policy and Research
• Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia University
• Rebecca Blank, Brookings Institution
• Joseph Blasi, Rutgers University
• Alan S. Blinder, Princeton University
• William A. Darity, Duke University
• Brad DeLong, University of California/Berkeley
• John DiNardo, University of Michigan
• Henry Farber, Princeton University
• Robert H. Frank, Cornell University
• Richard Freeman, Harvard University
• James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
• Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University
• Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy Research
• Lawrence Katz, Harvard University
• Robert Lawrence, Harvard University
• David Lee, Princeton University
• Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Lisa Lynch, Brandeis University
• Ray Marshall, University of Texas
• Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
• Robert Pollin, University of Massachusetts
• William Rodgers, Rutgers University
• Dani Rodrik, Harvard University
• Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
• Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• William Spriggs, Howard University
• Peter Temin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Mark Thoma, University of Oregon
• Lester C. Thurow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Laura Tyson, University of California/Berkeley
• Paula B. Voos, Rutgers University
• David Weil, Boston University
• Edward Wolff, New York University

In a new report for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, researchers David Madland and Karla Walter argue that a more-unionized workforce would lead towards a stronger economy for the United States.

According to the report, the key to a sustainable economy is to increase the purchasing power of hard-working Americans - and one way to do that is by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

"Unions paved the way to the middle class for millions of American workers and pioneered benefits such as paid health care and pensions along the way," say Madland and Walter. "The Employee Free Choice Act...holds the promise of boosting unionization rates and improving millions of Americans' economic standing and workplace conditions."

Their main findings?

• If the number of union workers increased by just 5%, an estimated $49 billion more in wages and salaries would be introduced into the American economy each year.
• Union workers are 28.2% more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance.
• 53.9% of union workers are more likely to have employer-based pensions, enabling a financially-secure retirement after years of hard work.

Increasing wages is key to the American economy. Consumer activity "accounts for roughly 70 percent of our nation's economy." Right now, Americans literally don't have the money to spend on goods and services, leading to the vicious cycle that we currently find our economy in.

The report also notes that increasing the percentage of unionized workers also benefits the non-unionized. "Non-union workers, particularly in highly unionized industries," says Madland and Walter, "receive financial benefits from employers who increase wages to match what unions would win" in order to stay competitive.

The report concludes that one of the best ways of achieving this increase in union households is the Employee Free Choice Act:

"Workers attempting to unionize currently face a hostile legal environment and are commonly intimidated by aggressive anti-union employers. The Employee Free Choice Act would help workers who want to join a union do so by ensuring fairness in the union selection process."

Click here to access the state-by-state reports.

A day after congressional leaders have settled on the details of a nearly $790 billion economic stimulus package, House Republican leaders are still against this compromise.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger is sending an email to members and activists today, asking recipients to take action by calling three key Republican senators--Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania--to urge them to vote for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on final passage as part of an economic solution for America's families.

Read Anna's email, below:

Dear friend,

If you're like me, you've been following the news very closely, trying to make heads or tails of Congress' progress on President Obama's economic stimulus bill.

Ask these key senators to support the economic stimulus. On Tuesday, the bill successfully cleared the Senate and it was just announced that the conference committee agreed to a final version that saves jobs and helps our state governments continue to provide vital services.

But the bill is under attack from the right wing. They're robo-calling calling Senate offices and attacking moderates on right wing radio because they want President Obama to fail in bringing the change we need.

Under no circumstances will we allow this to take place.

That's why we need your help right now. Please call the three key Republican senators -- Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - and urge them to stop further job losses and cuts in vital public services.

We need Congress to act as swiftly on real economic recovery for working people in America as they did to bail out Wall Street. We have seen first-hand what it means when crucial public services - health care, senior services, and public safety - are cut back at the very time people need them most.

These three Senators deserve our thanks for voting the right way yesterday. They did what was right based on what's good for the country, not partisan politics.

Call them now and ask them to continue their support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

http://call.seiu.org/9/economic

---

President Obama says creating 4 million jobs is the most important part of his economic plan.

The Senate last night moved forward on the Stimulus Package, voting 61 to 36 to end debate and bring the measure on a vote today.

This procedural victory over the threat of a GOP filibuster -- called "invoking cloture" -- was possible when three Republicans crossed party lines to join the Democrats: Sens. Olympia Snowe (R., ME), Arlen Specter (R., PA) and Susan Collins (R., ME).

Next steps: Now the Senate Stimulus Package will return to the House, which will try to reconcile the new legislation with the measure they passed last week. Here's a look at the differences between the two packages:

* STATE AID: The Senate sliced $40 billion out of the House bill that would stabilize states, money that would "reduce pressure on states for layoffs and service cuts that economists say would undercut the efforts by the stimulus bill to create jobs and spur consumer spending and business investments."

* TAXES: The Senate bill includes $70 billion to prevent middle class families from having to pay the "alternative minimum tax," a tax designed to ensure wealthy Americans paid at least a minimum tax payment. However, "because Congress has made such an adjustment for years now, economists say the provision offers no new help to the economy."

* PROGRAMS: "The Senate bill does not include $19 billion for school construction included in the House bill, reduces health insurance subsidies for the unemployed, and scales back Mr. Obama's proposed middle class tax cut."

* HOUSES: "The Senate provides $35.5 billion for a $15,000 tax credit for purchasers of homes bought in the year after the bill takes effect. The House includes $2.6 billion and limits its smaller $7,500 credit to first-time homebuyers for homes purchased from Jan. 1, 2009 to July 1, 2009 and phases out the credit for couples making more than $150,000."

"So, you know, we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I think that the American people are asking is: Do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation," President Obama said in his first prime-time news conference last night, reiterating the urgency with which he wants Congress to act to begin the task of saving and creating more jobs. "But doing nothing -- that's not an option, from my perspective." (Read the transcript of the news conference including the reporter Q&A with the President here.)

As President Barack Obama travels to Florida today to talk up the passage of the stimulus, he's joined by a surprising ally: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who will introduce the president. Crist is one of four Republican governors openly supporting Obama's stimulus, including Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, and Jim Douglas of Vermont.

Watch live video coverage of Obama's townhall meeting in Fort Myers, FL today.

In an editorial for the Los Angeles Times today, former US Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich gives his advice on how we can reverse this deepening recession and give middle class Americans the greatest opportunity for a better life.

Like economist Paul Krugman, Reich also suggests that we can strengthen our economy through the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for Americans to form unions. Unions, he says, would "give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits," which "necessary if our economy is to succeed."

"The sooner (the Employee Free Choice Act is) enacted, the better," he says, "for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy."

Reich goes on to explain this by asking his readers to look back 50 years ago, when "middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring." He argues that salaries provided us with the means to buy goods and services we produced. "Good pay meant more purchases," he argues, "and more purchases meant more jobs."

How were we able to achieve this? Unions. In 1955, he states, "more than a third of working Americans belonged to one," which gave them the leverage they required to get the paychecks that America needed. And for those that weren't unionized, they, too, benefitted from unions, as "wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well."

Reich argues that the same solution would apply to boost today's economy. Citing a statistic from the Department of Labor, workers in unions "earn 30% higher wages" and "are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts."

However, there are barriers to forming unions. Reich explains:

"Although America and its economy need unions, it's become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so."

"The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal."

And that's why, he argues, that the Employee Free Choice Act is necessary to get our economy back on track.

Read the full opinion piece by clicking here.