The following message was sent to our email list today. Please copy and paste the text and send the text to your friends, family, and coworkers to ask them to join our campaign.

-----------------------------------

Hi Friend,

Did you see what President Obama said on Labor Day?

It's why I support the Employee Free Choice Act-to level the playing field so it's easier for employees who want a union to form a union. Because when labor is strong, America is strong. When we all stand together, we all rise together.

And according to news reports, Vice President Biden expressed his support for the Employee Free Choice Act, too, saying it will pass this year.

For that to happen, we need your help. Click here to join our campaign:

http://action.seiu.org/page/s/joinforefca

This week hundreds of people will meet with their Members of Congress, and we'll make thousands of calls to their offices to show the broad public support for the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field against corporate greed by giving working people a free and fair chance to get ahead in this rough economy. We can pass the Employee Free Choice Act, but we need your help to do it.

Can you join our campaign to fight corporate greed? Click here to join:

http://action.seiu.org/page/s/joinforefca

President Obama said it best yesterday: When we all stand together, we all rise together.

Together we can get our economy back on track with the Employee Free Choice Act. Thanks for your help.

In Solidarity,

Michael Whitney
SEIU.org

When security guard Richard Ruiz expressed frustration over he and his coworkers' unsuccessful efforts to form a union in their workplace to Miami New Times' blog Riptide, he was simply trying to give a voice to their struggle.

In January, about seventy-five percent of the Security Alliance guards signed cards to form a union with SEIU--but since that time, he and the 50 or so security guards employed by Security Alliance of Florida in the Miami Beach area had been experiencing intimidation, scare tactics and harassment at the hands of their employer for exercising their rights to organize. Ruiz was the only one out of his coworkers who was willing to speak about their efforts to form a union on the record.

His reward for having the courage to speak out for what he believes in? Losing his job. "We are trying to make this city safer for everybody, but I was fired when they found out I was speaking out and wanted a union," said Richard Ruiz, who was terminated after working for more than two years for Security Alliance. "Employers shouldn't stop decent people from trying to have a better life."

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.

Wal-Mart has a longtime record of harassing and intimidating workers who have called for union representation; the giant corporation has even gone so far as to shut down stores where workers voted for a voice on the job. It's bad enough Wal-Mart fights workers' efforts to organize...now they're trying to stifle freedom of speech too?

It appears that way - Wal-Mart has filed an injunction against a website critical of its Canadian business practices, and their "legal basis" will outrage you. Wal-Mart wants to stop WalmartWorkersCanada.ca--a popular website dedicated to helping Wal-Mart 'associates' understand and exercise their rights as workers in Canada--from using the word "Wal-Mart" either "alone or with other words... in a color scheme of blue, white and gold." Even more ridiculous, the company wants to restrict the usage of circular shapes on the group's website! Says UFCW Canada National President Wayne Hanley:

"This injunction request is an over the top assault on freedom of speech and on our ability to effectively communicate with Wal-Mart workers," "It's a kneejerk response by Wal-Mart to the idea of its employees trying to understand their options as workers, and trying to share experiences with other 'associates'."

Walmart's response to the success of www.walmartworkerscanada.ca is just another outrageous example of how the largest retailer in the history of the world will use its bottomless legal budget to manipulate the collective bargaining process and do just about anything to discourage its 'associates' from joining the union."

If Wal-Mart has its way, "an oval, circular or semi-circular design" will be off limits to those who aren't on board with the largest retailer in the world's corporate practices. Seriously--if you are a group that's critical of Wal-Mart's business practices, they better not catch you using anything that remotely resembles their yellow smiley face logo! It's a legal scenario simply too bizarre for words.

You can take a stand against Wal-Mart's censorship threat and stand up for internet Democracy. Tell Walmart to respect free speech: sign UFCW's petition today.

If we let Wal-Mart set the standard for free speech online, there is no telling where the company's absurd demands will end. Can you imagine a world where Wal-Mart has exclusive rights to blue, white, gold, and abstract geometrical shapes? Please take a moment to show your solidarity for the activists at WalmartWorkersCanada.ca.

Help stop Walmart's war against the freedom of expression online.

Yesterday, Pope Benedict released a bold new encyclical criticizing the current economic system and reaffirming the Church's longstanding commitment to protecting workers' freedom to form unions--the central principle of the Employee Free Choice Act.

"The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past," said the Pope. More at the New York Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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, workers at Boston's Caritas Carney Hospital, part of Caritas Christi Health Care and the largest community-based hospital system in Massachusetts, voted overwhelmingly to join 1199SEIU. This election comes on the heels of an April vote in which more than 800 healthcare workers at Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston also voted to unite together with thousands of healthcare workers in 1199SEIU.

The successful vote was hailed by community leaders as a win not just for caregivers, but also for patients and the community. "Carney is so much more than just a community hospital - it's a real part of the community," said Boston Mayor Thomas Menino in a statement. "Generations of Dorchester families have turned to Carney for quality care, good jobs and a ray of hope...Why can't every hospital in the city of Boston have 1199?" (Our thoughts exactly!) Since 2006, 1199SEIU has more than tripled in size in Massachusetts.

1199SEIU's bargaining unit will represent respiratory therapists, radiology technicians, LPNs, nurse assistants, dietary and clerical workers, and housekeepers at the 159-bed hospital. Read more about the election at the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, and CNBC.

Ever wonder how, exactly unions are formed? The Center for American Progress is out with a new video that explains the process step-by-step.

Watch it here:

The main point of the video is simple: it's really, really hard to join a union. Only one in seven union drives will ultimately reach a point where they get a first contract within a year.

Here's the gist:

When a group of co-workers decide that they want to form a union, they sign cards that say they'd like to join. The process continues until at least 30% of the employees sign the cards, but most unions wait until around 50% or even 70% of employees sign them, for reasons that will become clear in just a moment.

At this point, the boss gets to make a choice. If the signed cards totals 50% plus one, then the employer can choose to recognize the union, since there's a majority. We call that "majority signup."

But if the boss chooses not to recognize the union through majority signup, they have a second option - even though a majority have said they want a union, forcing a process called the "secret ballot."

This is what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about: we want employees to make the choice, not their bosses.

In a secret ballot election, the boss gets to decide how, when and under what conditions the process is held. Many employers use the "secret ballot" method as a way to drag the process out. This election can be delayed for weeks, months, even years - enough time to scare employees into changing their minds.

During a "secret ballot" election, here's what a typical employee might face:

• 91% of the time, workers experience one-on-one meetings with their bosses, who may threaten anything from changing their hours, shipping their job overseas, or even closing down the company completely.
• In 82% of cases, workers may be observed or receive visits from union-busting public relations firms and lawyers.
• In 25% of cases, employees are illegally fired during the course of trying to join a union.
• 40% of the time, there's simply never a vote.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives employees - not CEOs - the free choice to join unions. It's designed, not to stifle your rights, but to level the playing field so that it's the workers who get to decide: they can choose to organize under either the majority signup method, or the secret ballot method.