Throughout the middle part of the 20th century--when more than a third of working Americans belonged to a union--American workers generated economic growth with increased productivity and were rewarded with higher wages. But this link between greater productivity and higher wages has broken down.

In the past 50+ years that have passed since America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring, former labor secretaries Robert Reich (1993 - 1997) and Ray Marshall (1977 - 1981) have seen an economy weakened by a combination of personal greed, individual irresponsibility and unsustainable financial conditions. In Sunday's Chicago Tribune, Reich and Marshall explain why the Employee Free Choice Act is critical to getting our economy back on track.

While the debate surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act continues to grow, the underlying principles behind the measure shouldn't be swept under the rug or marginalized for political convenience. We have a president and secretary of labor who both support making it easier for workers to join unions. We shouldn't squander this opportunity for change.

Our country's history, Reich and Marshall say, has shown that unions are necessary to give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits and the opportunity to fulfill the elusive American dream.

The years following World War II saw the largest increase in union membership in U.S. history, and along with it came increased productivity and shared prosperity. We can repeat this, but we must reform our obsolete labor laws so workers can join unions without the roadblocks so many face.

Putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the long-term growth of U.S. economy by giving consumers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services our economy produces. Especially, say the former labor secretaries, because "a vital component of our nation's recovery is making sure that we don't return to a bubble-and-bust economy, where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed."

Today, employers are "more than twice as likely as they were in the 1990s to use 10 or more tactics...to thwart workers' organizing efforts." A very important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, Reich and Marshall remind us, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights by using union-busting tactics like intimidation, harassment, or threat of fire.

The principles that are the foundation of the Employee Free Choice Act -- giving workers a direct path to form unions, toughening penalties against employers who break the law and helping workers secure a first contract in a reasonable period of time -- are ones we must never waiver on.

The sooner the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy. Because in this economy, "people should be able to bargain, not beg, their way into the middle class."

Read the whole editorial here.

A recent editorial in The Times Record shows that Mainers are sick and tired of listening to lies from big business about the Employee Free Choice Act. From veterans speaking out in favor of the act to everyday citizens writing in to their local papers people across the state are standing up against big business, and for an economy that works for everybody.

The biggest opponents to the Employee Free Choice Act, are, not surprisingly, big business. From the Times Record editorial:

"We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." --former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott.

Beneath Scott's bravado lies fear -- a fear that if the playing field is leveled to give workers an equal footing, Wal-Mart could see its 1.4-million American work force unionize to receive higher wages, health-care benefits and pensions commensurate with the Bentonville, Ark.-based company's 2008 earnings of $12.73 billion on $374.53 billion in sales.

Big business, with no real evidence to back them up, has turned in their desperation to a campaign based on fear: a fear of workers with the right to form a union when they choose, without harassment or intimidation. A fear unsupported by the facts that prove how unionization will only improve Maine's economy through higher wages for workers, and increased benefits from employers such as health insurance and pensions.

But we've talked a lot about what the Employee Free Choice Act and increased unionization can do. The Times Record editorial clearly outlines what it will not:

This bill does does not "silence" employers or require them to remain neutral about unions, so long as they do not threaten their employees.

The oft-publicized charge that unions will coerce employees to sign a union authorization card is a canard: In the first 70 years of the National Labor Relations Act, only 42 cases found fraud or coercion by unions in the submittal of authorization cards; by contrast, in 2007 alone, there were 29,000 documented cases of intimidation or coercion by employers.

Forty-two cases of fraud, versus 29,000 documented cases of intimidation or coercion. When you look at the numbers, it's no wonder why big business is running scared.

Fight the Fear: Join the campaign to support the Employee Free Choice Act today: http://action.seiu.org/page/s/millionforfreech

The New York Times is out in front with an early endorsement of a public health insurance option as part of any plan to fix health care:

A new public plan - to offer consumers greater choice, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and underlying medical costs - seems worth trying.

The editorial does an excellent job of outlining the savings and benefits that would be accrued for both patients and businesses as a result of a public health insurance option. It would cut down administrative costs, reduce premiums, and improve stability of coverage for consumers.

The article also quells anti-reform groups' arguments that a public health insurance option would end employer-based health insurance as we know it. According to the Times, "[i]nnovative, nimble private plans with well-integrated service systems might outperform any government plan, just as some now outperform Medicare through better coordination of services, stronger preventive care and broader benefits."

There's a general consensus that you can't fix health care with one silver bullet. Real reform requires a smart mix of policies that will address issues of access, quality, and cost. But, as the Times points out, a public health insurance option is an essential ingredient.

There is a great editorial in The New York Times today on unions and the Obama Administration's commitment to labor--giving basically a full-throated endorsement of the Employee Free Choice Act and why it is such an important part of an economic recovery program.

Employee Free Choice legislation:

"The measure is vital legislation and should not be postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay."

Unions during a recession:

"The argument against unions -- that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands -- is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would...Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared."

Labor issues to become higher priority:

"If Mr. Obama's campaign promises are to be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama's creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given short shrift."

Too many relevant points to quote them all, so read the entire NY Times editorial here.

This morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial focusing on the uninsured and the incoming Obama Administration:

"So far, Obama is making all the right moves. Most important, he appears to be sticking to his first-year timetable - economic crisis or not."

The editorial lauds the nomination of former Senator Tom Daschle, stating that it's an indication that "the new administration plans to move boldly." Daschle, the piece states, is "well-versed in the ways of Congress, where Obama's reform will rise or fall," and that Daschle's plan to expand coverage while pulling the reins on health costs is a "workable strategy."

The piece also commends Obama on the health care meet-ups that have been taking place. Calling them a "smart move," the paper says that by "sampling public input on health care reform," the incoming administration will be able to "incorporate ideas from the grassroots" and learn from the "top-down" model that "helped sidetrack Clinton-era reform efforts."

The editorial board's conclusion?

"A can-do spirit and sense of urgency from a president-elect who wants 'change' are the best things America's uninsured have going for them."

You can read the full editorial at the Philadelphia Inquirer here.