We already knew the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's extremism on issues such as financial reform, labor law, climate change and health care reform have left them out of touch with the mainstream. However, their recent opposition to a bill proposing paid sick leave for workers who contract flu-like symptoms in light of this year's H1N1 epidemic is simply unconscionable.

Chamber Vice President Randel K. Johnson recently stated that they oppose paid sick leave because "the vast majority of employers provide paid leave of some sort." The fact is, more than one-third of all workers don't get any paid sick leave. It's even worse for low-income workers like school food workers and in-home care aids: 76 percent don't have something many of us take granted--the right to a "sick day."

Despite widespread support for passing an emergency bill for employees to receive paid sick time if they contract flu-like symptoms, the U.S. Chamber is trying to kill it. "Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to force someone battling H1N1 to come to work either couldn't care less about the well-being of his employees, or couldn't know less about the way disease and infection spreads," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.

For too long, the Chamber has preferred to overlook low-income workers and real economic benefits in order to advocate for the perceived interests of large employers. No worker who gets sick should have to choose between their health and their paycheck.

Tell the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to cease lobbying against a common sense solution to keep our workplaces safe and healthy while America is in the middle of a record-breaking flu pandemic: http://action.seiu.org/page/s/ChamberH1N1

We already knew that nearly 50 percent of workers who get sick are forced to choose between their health and their paycheck. For low-income workers, 76 percent find themselves without something many of us take for granted:--the right to a "sick day."

For millions of workers, losing a day's wages if they stay home sick is not even the worst-case scenario. Because as New York Times columnist Jim Dyer reminds us, many workers are actually forced to choose between their health and their job. Factory worker Alda Valdez, a mother of four, was fired for catching a cold:

"I asked the boss for permission to go to the hospital. She said, 'It's fine, go - but you don't have a job anymore.' "

If passed, the Paid Sick Days bill introduced August 20 by Councilwoman Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan) would vastly improve the lives of 1.2 million workers in New York by requiring all businesses in New York City to provide their employees between five and nine paid sick days (depending on the size of the business). With support from healthcare oranizations and unions including1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and SEIU 32BJ, Intro 1059 faces opposition from business groups such business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who argue that added costs might force some businesses to cut back on hiring.

The vast majority of Americans may not agree on much, but the importance of this healthcare issue is one issue Americans come together on. A nationwide poll conducted last year by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center showed that a whopping 86 percent of Americans believe that employers should be required by law to provide paid sick days to workers.

Put things even more in perspective by reading the Jim Dwyer column in the NY Times: Health Care? Not if You Can't Leave Work to Get It.

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.

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.

The Washington Post this week ran a headline, "Quietly, Health Care Debate Enters Crucial New Phase." Well, not that quietly. Not a single workday passed this week without major health care news spilling onto cable news networks, blogs and newspapers.

Below are just a few of the highlights from the past week:

1.   House Education and Labor Committee Approves Reform with an all-nighter. In a sign that President Obama's urgency is being felt throughout Congress, the Education and Labor Committee debated amendments until about 6 a.m. Friday morning and resumed mere hours later for a final vote. Two of the three committees reviewing the legislation have now voted for its passage. Next up: the House Energy and Commerce committee, which is voting on amendments now, and is expected to vote on the draft legislation next week.

2.  In the Senate, we had major progress with the landmark vote in the Senate HELP Committee. "The Senate health committee approved a massive health care overhaul bill in a party-line 13-10 vote Wednesday morning, a major step in the push to create a government-run health insurance plan.  The partisan approval of the $600 billion health bill in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was a landmark moment in the 60-year push by the Democratic Party for national health care," reports Politico.

3.    The New York Times declared in its lead editorial, "[America's Affordable Health Choices Act] is worth fighting for."  The NY Times continued, "While the Senate continues to struggle over its approach to health care reform, House Democratic leaders have unveiled a bill that would go a long way toward solving the nation's health insurance problems without driving up the deficit. It is already drawing fierce opposition from business groups and many Republicans. This is a bill worth fighting for. ...The bill makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine." 

4.  The American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed the House health care bill, undermining Republican arguments implying (and sometimes alleging) that doctors were opposed to the Democratic plan to fix health care.  "This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House."

5.  Target joins with Wal-Mart in rebuffing the Chamber of Commerce's staunch opposition to health care reform.  The AP reported, "Wal-Mart is the latest in a line of traditionally Republican-leaning businesses to embrace key portions of President Barack Obama's bid to overhaul health care, a trend that could complicate opponents' efforts to build a united front when Congress ramps up its work on the issue this summer."'

The Chamber of Commerce's veneer of unity on health care is beginning to fade.

In the latest blow to the Chamber's "Just Say No!" strategy on health care reform, Wal-Mart joined with SEIU and the Center for American Progress today in announcing support for an employer mandate on health coverage.

An excerpt of the letter is below:

As the nation's largest private employer, the nation's largest union of health care workers with over one million members, and a think tank that has been a leader on health care policy...we are coming together to advance what we believe are important proposals that should be included in the current efforts to reform our nation's health care system.

[...] We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage... Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs. Guaranteeing cost containment is essential.

Read the full letter here.

Read coverage of this letter, here. Praise from the White House Office of Health Reform on this strong support for health care reform--including an employer mandate--here.

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.

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.

Yesterday, companies across the employment spectrum announced more than 65,000 job cuts around the country and around the world, another alarming indication that more pink slips, pay freezes and economic hardships are in store for working families. President Obama cited the layoff announcements in remarks yesterday morning as he urged action on an $825 billion economic stimulus package of tax cuts, emergency benefits and public spending projects.

On the commentary section of Guardian.co.uk, Dean Baker discusses why Congress needs to approve a version of President Barack Obama's stimulus package as quickly as possible to further that all important first step toward stopping the downward slide of the economy. "However, the package is only a first step," says Baker:

"The other obvious way to provide a quick boost to the economy is by giving employers tax incentives for shortening their standard workweek or work year. This can take different forms. An employer who currently provides no paid vacation can offer all her workers three weeks a year of paid vacation, approximately a 6% reduction in work time.

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.

"Although most workers would like to join a union, very few ever get the chance to vote. In fact, employers have been stifling the efforts of workers to lawfully organize a union through elections," writes Jaime Contreras, Capital Area Director of SEIU Local 32BJ, in a Friday op-ed in Washington Hispanic. "Consequently, less than 100,000 joined a union through secret ballot election last year." "The Employee Free Choice Act would provide workers, once again, with a fair shot at joining a union. What they choose to do is their decision, just as it should be." Read the full op-ed.

(Note: Translated from Spanish by Eugenio Villasante, 32BJ)

If you're feeling a little more worn out and weary at this time of year than usual, it could be because leisure time for American workers decreased by 20 percent this year, according to a Harris Poll Interactive study released this week. The average time Americans spent working in 2008 was 46 hours a week, while the average time spent playing was just 16 hours, according to the poll.

Interestingly enough, although the median time spent working only rose from 45 to 46 hours over the last year, the number of hours spent playing in 2008 demonstrated a four hour drop from 2007, when the median leisure time for working people clocked in at 20 hours a week.

How to explain the missing three hours in this equation? The polling agency posits that the missing three hours were spent in a "nebulous, grey area" which Americans considered neither working nor playing. "As the American economic situation worsened, people who were worried about their jobs spent more time 'just checking in' via computer or wireless device," Harris said. "While our respondents didn't consider this as time spent working, they also didn't count it as leisure time and landing instead in a nebulous grey area." The study results revealed Americans have become more worried this year about appearing expendable to their employers, so they are putting in longer hours on the job and cutting back on downtime. Younger employees were especially likely to be working longer hours.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera issued the following statement today regarding the 2008 Colorado Health Care Summit:

"The more than 2 million working families of SEIU commend Former Senator Tom Daschle and the Obama healthcare transition team for their commitment to fixing health care--and we look forward to doing our part to promote this vital effort across the country.

"Senator Daschle's announcement today confirming the commitment of the new administration to address the healthcare crisis in America is great news for patients, caregivers, and employers alike. Senator Daschle has long been a champion for working families, and his announcement today is a tribute to his proven record of standing up for improvements to the healthcare system.

"More broadly, the recognition by Senator Daschle and the Obama team that rising healthcare costs are putting pressure on families and on businesses offers hope the mounting crisis will be addressed early in the next administration to help get our economy back on track. Clearly, any solution must expand coverage, reduce costs, and improve quality--the very priorities spelled out by Senator Daschle in Denver today.

"Today, SEIU's working families applaud Senator Daschle for his ongoing innovation, his steadfast commitment to fix the healthcare system, and his bold proposals for engaging Americans in the solutions. The fact that the Obama team is proposing some of the same tools that worked so well during the presidential election to ensure the voices of ordinary American families are part of the debate--including soliciting ideas by Internet and at house parties--demonstrates their commitment to addressing the problems on Main Street in a real way. SEIU healthcare workers plan to attend these house parties so we can share what we hear every day: working Americans need quality, affordable coverage they can count on.

"It is both fitting and telling that Senator Daschle's announcement should come from an event in Colorado, where Senator Ken Salazar has also shown great leadership in the movement to reform the healthcare system. With the Partnership for a Healthy Colorado citing each Colorado family will spend more than $934 to care for the uninsured by the end of 2008 and Families USA showing premiums for the average family have risen 82 percent in the last six years alone, Colorado exemplifies the severity of the situation nationwide. Senator Salazar has consistently shown he recognizes Coloradoans--and Americans overall--can't wait any longer to hear solutions to the healthcare crisis.

"SEIU members--more than one million of whom went to work today in hospitals, nursing homes, and as home care providers--are committed to work together with Senators Daschle, Salazar and other elected and business leaders to rebuild the healthcare system and the economy so they work for working people again."