This week IPC released a new report that squarely refutes misleading claims by anti-immigrant (and anti-labor) groups who believe that spending over $200 billion to deport unauthorized immigrants will solve our nation's serious economic challenges. Confirming earlier data, the Economic Blame Game: U.S. Unemployment is Not Caused by Immigration shows that swapping out the 8.3 million unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. today WILL NOT improve job prospects for the 15.7 million Americans currently unemployed.

When you get down to the specifics, replacing employed undocumented workers with unemployed native workers just doesn't work out. They live in different parts of the country, work in different industries, and have divergent skill sets. Some key facts from the report:

• Overall regions with the highest unemployment rates--particularly manufacturing centers and rural areas--tend to have the lowest population of recent immigrants. A few examples....
• The largest share of (26.9%) of all employed recent immigrants without a high school diploma lived in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington in 2008. But the largest share (18.9%) of unemployed natives without a high school diploma live in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
• Recent immigrants are 17% of the labor force in Miami, but only 3% of the labor force in Cleveland. Yet the unemployment rate for native-born blacks in Cleveland is double that of native-born blacks in Miami.

In contrast, the report shows that mass deportation strategy doesn't come close to addressing the real needs of workers suffering in today's economy. According to a new study by the Perryman Group, deporting 12 million unauthorized immigrants would cost $1.8 trillion in lost spending annually, $651.5 billion in annual lost output, and $8.1 million in lost jobs.

Yet, as IPC, NILC, and the conservative leaning CATO Institute have reported previously, a comprehensive immigration reform package like the one debated by the Senate in 2007 could generate hundreds of billions of dollars for the U.S. economy. By getting unauthorized workers into the system, we'll increase the tax base, increase consumer spending, and raise wages and standards for all workers.

Click here to check out the full IPC report. And to learn more about the economic benefits of legalizing undocumented immigrants, check out the NILC report written by Jon Blazer and SEIU's own Joshua Bernstein--"Legalizing Undocumented Immigrants: An Essential Too in the Fight Against Poverty."

After months and months of publicly insisting furloughs would save the state millions, Schwarzenegger admits that thinking was....wrong.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's private lawyers admitted yesterday in court papers that more than 1,000 workers at five state agencies were furloughed, despite achieving no economic gains for the state - a clear abuse of power. More at www.seiu1000.org.

Last week, we learned that the swift action by the President and Congress to pass an economic recovery package earlier this year helped stave off a global economic recession, put our economy back on the path of growth, and helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

SEIU was a major proponent of the economic recovery package and we believe we need to continue to make progress on a number of other economic initiatives to build long-term sustainable economic growth--these include passing meaningful financial reform, investing in green jobs, using public pension funds to build a 21st century infrastructure, and creating a new retirement system to protect our future.

Passing Meaningful Financial Reform
Anna Burger writes on New Deal 2.0 about the need to fundamentally change the way we value wealth and work in our country and act now on meaningful reforms to protect our families from future economic crises.

To build long-term economic progress we must:

• Create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency to serve as a watchdog against predatory and reckless banking products;
• Crackdown on out of control executive pay that rewards short term risks over long term results;
• End too big to fail once and for all by separating commercial banking from investment banking and raising capital requirements back to levels that promote safe and sound banks;
• Empower shareholders to act on executive pay and break the excessive power of executive-controlled boards;
• Force banks to expand lending to small businesses and state and local governments to create jobs and save critical services;
• Demand banks stop foreclosures and help families keep their homes;
• Reregulate the shadow financial markets--including derivatives, hedge funds and private equity; and
• Investigate, and if necessary prosecute, the big banks and Wall Street for crashing our economy.

In case you missed it--more than 5,000 Americans from 20 states--converged on the American Bankers Association convention in Chicago to demand banks stop fighting reforms that would help protect our families from future crises. It was the beginning of a national movement to hold banks and Wall Street accountable for their reckless behavior.

Investing in Green Jobs
During the first meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Board, Anna Burger shared her perspective on how business, labor and government can work together towards creating a low-carbon, green economy and a movement into sustainable good, green jobs--citing the work SEIU and other Change to Win unions are already doing on the community and national level to lead the way on green initiatives.

The economic crisis in Puerto Rico is fast racing towards a depression-era level. The unemployment level is already at 17 percent, and Governor Fortuño's recent pink-slipping of 17,000 government workers to take effect Nov. 6 will only make things worse. If not stopped, Puerto Rico's unemployment rate could easily reach that of New Orleans post-hurricane Katrina.

Gov. Fortuño said the job cuts, expected to save $386 million, are necessary because the government faces a $3.2 billion deficit this year. These numbers are certainly nothing to sniff at---but I can't help but wonder about the money Puerto Rico has received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Thanks to these funds, other states in crisis have already generated thousands of new jobs in green sectors, sustainable energy, information technology, and infrastructure. But according to federal reporting, Puerto Rico has created only 126 jobs after receiving $2.9 BILLION in ARRA funds. Even with my rudimentary accounting knowledge, I'm pretty sure these numbers don't add up.

In a Huffington Post piece today, SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera warns that "what started as a march in protest to the impending firings of public sector workers has turned into a movement to hold Governor Fortuño accountable for solving [Puerto Rico's] financial nightmare."

Failing to suppress turnout, the Governor's administration did its best to minimize the event, officially stating that 15,000 people turned out while the media estimates were 150,000 and organizers estimated closer to 300,000. Governor Fortuño and his administration are clearly aware that it's one thing to have a problem contained at home; it's quite another thing to become a problem in the eyes of Congress and the Obama administration.

While President Obama's vision for the U.S. economy is anchored in creating good jobs, affordable healthcare, and increasing accountability in the private sector, Governor Fortuño is clinging desperately to George Bush's failed economic agenda. This agenda protected the private sector and the very wealthy at all costs, decreased government accountability, and basically stacked the deck against the poor and middle class. And here we are one recession, an American Recovery Investment Act and a TARP Act later working our way out of it.

If Governor Fortuño and Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, Congressman Pierluisi can keep the problem quarantined within Puerto Rico, they too will get a free pass on accountability for their lack of a clear plan to revive the U.S. territory's plummeting economy. They will continue to apply "survival of the fittest" economics to Puerto Rico with no need to account for how America's multi-billion dollar funding to the island is invested.

Read the full piece at Huffington Post here. More on SEIU's blog about today's follow-up actions by Todo Puerto Rico Por Puerto Rico.

In this month's American Prospect, David Moberg writes an exposé on how government contracts are creating poverty-wage jobs. Through the story of New Jersey school cafeteria worker Ada Iglesias, Moberg personalized the connection between the federal dollars and a struggling family.

Here's an excerpt:

"Ada Iglesias relies on her job as a cafeteria worker at Paramus High School in New Jersey to put food on the table for three hungry, preteen children. It's not easy. She makes $8 an hour, works only 24 hours a week, and while out of work over the school's summer recess, does not qualify for unemployment compensation. Her construction-worker husband, out of work for more than six months, also draws no unemployment insurance.

Feeding kids healthy meals is her job as well as her mission as a mother. Iglesias works for a company named Pomptonian, which contracts with the local school district to deliver the free and reduced-price lunches that are provided through the Child Nutrition Act. Federal funding through the Department of Agriculture provides most of Iglesias' paycheck. But like many service workers with poorly paid, precarious jobs, her family still struggles with poverty even as she works for a federal program designed to fight poverty and hunger."

The article goes on to discuss why federal dollars are often outsourced to private companies - usually, to save money. The reason for the savings is generally because of significant cuts in wages and benefits to workers who were previously employed through federal funds:

"But a study from the Rutgers University Center for Women and Work concluded that 'the majority of cost savings derive from the significant cuts in wages and benefits for food service workers who previously were employed by the school district -- as much as $4.00 to $6.00 an hour' plus elimination of health insurance."

The article is definitely worth reading. You can take a look here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=which_side_is_government_on

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.

Can you sign our letter to CEO Ken Lewis demanding answers for bank employees? Click here to add your initials to our letter to CEO Ken Lewis.

It was widely reported this week that Bank of America is seriously considering the elimination of up to 10% of the bank's branches, with CEO Ken Lewis discussing the proposal with investors. If those reports are true, that means the jobs of up to 5,000 bank employees at hundreds of Bank of America branches are at risk.

If you are a Bank of America employee, we need you to add your initials to our letter to Ken Lewis.

"It is absurd that no matter what happens in the economy these guys figure out a way to award themselves with enormous bonuses and there seems to be no problem with laying off workers," said SEIU's Stephen Lerner. "On the one hand the government is trying to stimulate the economy by pumping money into banks. But everything these banks are doing exacerbates the problem that they are supposed to be solving."

Bank of America employees need answers to questions about these drastic closure plans--at the very least, information about how they could be affected by branch closings. "There has been no communication with workers, as far as we have talked to, about what is happening, what their rights will be, if they get severance pay, if there will be buyouts, if their health care will be continued...And most importantly, there has been no discussion if they will take the money they pay in bonuses and move it to help their workers survive unemployment," said Lerner.

So, we decided to do BofA a solid by writing a letter to CEO Ken Lewis with several questions he should answer for his employees. Here's part of the letter to Lewis:

A spokesperson described this proposal as part of the "long-term direction of the company." But with families facing continued financial uncertainty, we believe this is the wrong time to eliminate the jobs of 5,000 workers and leave millions of our customers without the financial advice they need to get through this crisis.

We deserve answers to the following questions on your closure plans and the "long-term direction of the company."

  1. How many current Bank of America employees' jobs will be eliminated?
  2. Will laid off bank employees receive any severance pay?
  3. Will you give bank employees a say in how you close branches?
  4. Will you and other bank executives continue to accept bonuses after laying off thousands of workers?

If you want answers to these questions, we need your support for our letter to CEO Ken Lewis--click here to add your initials to our letter.

As the backbone of Bank of America, frontline bank workers helped drive the growth of the company for low wages, while executives took home huge paychecks and bonuses. Take CEO Ken Lewis, for example: while the bank crashed, he made $6,019 an hour. In the last three months alone, Bank of America made more than $3 billion in profits. And according to a newly-released report by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, BofA also issued $3.33 billion in cash and stock bonuses to executives last year. Merrill Lynch, which merged with BofA in January, issued $3.6 billion in bonuses despite having losses of more than $27 billion. This means that combined, the banks had 860 employees who were each given bonuses worth at least $1 million.

But that's not all....Bank of America has spent an additional $1.5 million in lobbying fees since January 2009. Does that sound right to you?

Even though taxpayers are backing Bank of America with $199.2 billion, it's the front-line bank workers who are going to hurt the most. But you can do something about it. Sign our letter to Lewis and demand answers about bank branch closures.

In spite of the fact that months of debate between CA lawmakers on how to resolve the state's $26 billion budget deficit may be finally coming to an end, there can be no cause for celebration when the 'solution' does not reflect the priorities of a vast majority of California voters. Commenting on the staggering cuts agreed upon by lawmakers late Monday night, SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker said this:

"There may be a budget deal, but there's no budget solution."

Walker continued, saying "The governor's refusal to close corporate tax loopholes, eliminate waste in private vendor contracts and make big tobacco and big oil pay their fair share, is another series of bad decisions."

"Making state employees pay what amounts to a 15 percent furlough tax is just plain wrong ... We'll fight in the courts, in the Legislature and in the workplace to have it cut back," Walker said.

The California State Council of the SEIU also released a statement from State Council President Kristy Sermersheim, who declared "Big oil, big tobacco, and the alcohol lobby" the only real winners in this budget deal.

"Approximately 80,000 seniors and people with disabilities will be put at risk of leaving their homes for institutions. Nearly half a million children will lose healthcare. The deal will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, making our terrible economy even worse. Local communities, which have relied on a responsible and balanced approach to their budget challenges, will now be hit with deep cuts to basic public safety and other services. And millions of school children will have an education inferior to what they could have."

Al Franken, like many ex-performers, knows when to arrive at stage right at the critical moment of a new play. Six months into the new Obama administration as we now get ready to pass for the first time in 223 years, a healthcare bill and in the coming months, the Employee Free Choice Act, Sen. Al Franken's presence and strong leadership in the Senate couldn't have come at a better time.

"He may have been a little slow in getting here, but we'll excuse him because he has a lot of catching up to do," joked Andy Stern, congratulating the newly-seated U.S. Senator of Minnesota on his victory last week at a rooftop reception held at SEIU's headquarters in the Senator's honor to welcome him to Washington, DC. Also on hand to welcome Sen. Franken to Washington, DC were fellow Senator Amy Klobuchar and SEIU members, staff, and leaders.

Upon his arrival to the reception, Sen. Franken had some warm words of praise for SEIU and the efforts the union made on his behalf during his campaign:

"What an amazing asset to America Andy Stern--and the SEIU--is. Andy has been right at the front of the healthcare debate for years, and [addressing Andy] I want to thank you for that work. I also want to thank Anna Burger and the members and leaders of SEIU..."

Being the strong supporter of workers' freedom to form unions and bargain that he is, Franken--who is a member of four unions!--also expressed gratitude for the opportunities and security being a union member has provided him, wife Franni and his family:

[...] I'm a member of four unions. If it weren't for unions, Franni and I wouldn't have [had] healthcare for the last three years.

The Senator for Minnesota also discussed his plans for the working people of this country, now that he's finally been seated [Franken's first legislative act as Senator was to co-sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act].

Now that I'm in the Senate, I guess I get their healthcare....and that's the healthcare that every American should get.

We're going to do that. I'm on the HELP committee, and we're going to do that. It's the first thing we're going to do. And we're going to do just a lot of great stuff...we're going to pass EFCA. We're going to make sure people have a level playing field to organize. We're going to create jobs in this country, and renewable energy...We need to do all these things--and I know we can. There are so many great possibilities ahead of this country. Our best days are yet to come. And I'm just so proud to be a member of the Senate.

Every single person who supported Franken by going out and voting for him made a big difference in the outcome of Minnesota's extremely close election, which, as Sen. Franken pointed out, he only "won by 312 votes...It was a really close election!"

"Through this union, ordinary people get to do extraordinary things--like elect Al Franken," said SEIU President Andy Stern.

On legislation to help small biz, U.S. Chamber is "Chamber of No"

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to defend the interests of small businesses, but even a quick examination of their legislative record shows them opposing bill after bill that may help small businesses--and consistently siding with big corporations. From legislation that would ease the burden of credit card terms for small businesses, to bills that would stop outsourcing, the U.S. Chamber has proven to be the "Chamber of No." Here's our list of the top five worst Chamber policies for small businesses.

1) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Credit Card Companies over Small Business Owners. Small business owners are increasingly likely to rely on credit cards to finance their business operations, yet- like the rest of us- are increasingly finding the terms of their card agreements less favorable. The U.S. Chamber sided with big credit card companies over small business in the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008--legislation to provide common-sense regulations on credit.

Small Business Owners Rely On Credit Cards, Get Hurt By Credit Card Companies. A recent survey by the National Small Business Association found that 59 percent of all small businesses used credit cards to fund capital purchases and that 34 percent of small businesses held over one quarter of their business debt in credit cards. Moreover, 75 percent reported that the terms of their credit cards had become less favorable in the last six months.

2) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Oil Over Small Businesses on Bill to Stabilize Gas Prices. Despite the fact that gas prices were skyrocketing, the U.S. Chamber opposed the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, legislation designed to stabilize gas prices during a period of meteoric price increases. The bill-- which would have created a special supplemental 25 percent tax on the windfall profits of major oil and gas companies, suspended the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, punished price gouging, and limited oil market speculation-- would have gone a long way to help America's small businesses, who are disproportionately sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices and price gouging at the pump.

3) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Legislation to Help Steelworkers Keep and Create Jobs in the U.S. The Chamber showed its true colors when it opposed "American-made" provisions in the aptly named "American Steel First Act," which would require infrastructure projects receiving federal funds to use American-made steel. The requirement would help domestic steel producers enjoy the benefits of federal stimulus funds, keeping much-needed jobs and commerce in the United States. Although mammoth companies like GE and Caterpillar get half or more of their revenue from exports, the same is emphatically not true of many small, local businesses and steel producers who deserve to benefit from federal spending before foreign counterparts.

4) U.S. Chamber Opposed Legislation to Stop Outsourcing of Call Centers
The US Chamber has continually supported the out-sourcing of jobs, despite small business support for legislation like the Call Center Consumer's Right to Know Act, an anti-outsourcing bill that requires call centers to disclose their location during each call. The small companies associated with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Electronics Association (AEA) oppose outsourcing because it allows larger multinational companies to take advantage of cost-cutting mechanisms that are unavailable to smaller businesses, causing small businesses to close.

5) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Expanding Healthcare for, Low-Income Families and Children- Siding with Big Tobacco Over Small Businesses. By opposing the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 and the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Chamber again found itself on the wrong side of small business interests. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Business Roundtable both supported the SCHIP extension because they believe "small business owners and their employees are especially vulnerable to the weakness of the current system." The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley, called the bill "a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair" particularly for states with "tobacco-based agricultural and industrial activities."

Remember the infamous factory raid in New Bedford, MA where hundreds of hard-working immigrants were rounded up, detained and separated from their families? Today, a horrible experience of déjà vu as workers at the same factory who make backpacks for the U.S. army face yet another tragedy. Less than three months after purchasing Eagle Industries, the new owner--Minneapolis-based Alliant Techsystems--is pushing to shut the factory's doors and move the work.

As Congress marshals us closer to a clean energy economy that creates green jobs, boosts national security and protects our planet, SEIU and coalition groups launched a print ad campaign last week in Capitol Hill publications. The print ads--from groups including Blue Green Alliance and Sierra Club-- urge Congress to pass and strengthen the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

Check out the ad below, which is currently running in Congress Daily AM, Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, CQ and the National Journal.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is expected to end up on the floor of the House this week, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announcing yesterday that she plans to bring the legislation for a House vote on Friday.

Between 1998 and 2007, the number of jobs in our country's emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs, according to a study by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Study results showed that clean energy jobs grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007.

Best of all: "The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America" report finds that the renewable energy industry is creating a diverse range of well-paying jobs in every single state, across all skill levels and educational backgrounds. Pew's study is the first-ever count across all 50 states of the actual jobs, companies and venture capital investments that supply the growing demand for environmentally friendly products and services.

Read the Pew report here and check out the state-by-state rankings here.

At a Cabinet meeting on Monday, President Barack Obama promised to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs would be created or saved in the second hundred days--four times the number created or saved in the first 100 days. From the President:

"Our ultimate goal is making sure that the average family out there, mom working, dad working -- that they are able to pay their bills, feel some job security, make their mortgage payments."

At the meeting, Vice President Biden presented a new summer initiative, "Roadmap to Recovery," which aims to speed up the progress of the Administration's recovery efforts. The report released today by the White House details ten of the major projects the Administration is committed to seeing through by the summer's end--projects which range from increasing health care access to airport/highway rehabilitation to natural park restoration.

From the looks of this list on the new Roadmap to Recovery website at WhiteHouse.gov, the commitments Obama and Biden intend to see to fruition encompass relatively specific numbers. (For example, the first project on the list reads "Enable 1,129 Health Centers in 50 States and Eight Territories to Provide Expanded Service to Approximately 300,000 Patients"). Locations around the country where economic stimulus package dollars are at work is visually mapped out for you as well on the new site, which is also serve as a place visitors can share their stories through comments, photos and videos.

From the beginning, the Obama administration has emphasized transparency and accountability in spending the stimulus money; promises which reflect a federal process that is designed to spend money 'carefully,' rather than just 'quickly.' However, as these spending and recovery initiatives are rolled out, one can't help but notice their resemblance to the economic recovery plan that has already been underway for several months--except in this case, it's not entirely clear what steps the White House will be to speed up the pace of stimulus spending in the coming months. Take a look at the plan yourself and let us know what you think in the comments below.

To mark the occasion of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, Sierra Club President Allison Chin addressed a group of SEIU employees during a lunch lecture on the topics of grassroots activism, the Employee Free Choice Act and working together with labor in the Blue Green Alliance.

Allowing workers a democratic chance to forum unions is an important way to help ensure that that green jobs in the new clean energy economy will also be good family-supporting jobs. Recognizing that protecting workers' rights to organize is critical to the future of our green economy, the Sierra Club has stood with labor in our campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act. "Passing the Employee Free Choice is one of our most important legislative priorities," said Chin. "Because an economy that treats workers fairly is one that is fundamentally better for our planet." Watch Allison speak to learn more about our joint efforts and why a strong labor movement is crucial to a strong environmental movement:

Join the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act.

In a town hall meeting today in New Mexico, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to passing the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow workers to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and benefits.

Watch it:

"What a difference a President makes," said SEIU International President Andy Stern. "For hard-working families who suffered for eight long years under George Bush's extreme anti-worker policies, President Obama's and Vice President Biden's leadership on behalf of the middle class is a breath of long-needed fresh air. We consider the President and Vice President steadfast partners in our fight to give working people a voice on the job in the face of the most challenging economic times since the Great Depression--and we look forward to seeing them at the signing ceremony of the Employee Free Choice Act."

Text of Obama's full remarks below the fold.

On May 11, Workers United members at the Illinois Hartmarx facility voted unanimously to occupy their workplace if chief lender Wells Fargo moves to shut the factory down. Watch the short documentary released today on the events at the Hart Schaffner & Marx factory in Des Plaines, IL over the last week:

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow also highlighted the Hartmarx bankruptcy issue on her program Monday night. Watch her segment on the suit makers' plight to save their jobs here.

You can help Hartmarx workers by signing a letter to Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf asking him to choose a bidder who will save these jobs. We'll make sure the letter is delivered with your signature and keep you updated on the situation.

Last week we brought you news of the emerging struggle of suit makers for Chicago-based Hart Schaffner & Marx menswear factory, members of SEIU's newest affiliate Workers United, whose jobs are in jeopardy as chief lender Wells Fargo Bank pushes to liquidate the bankrupt company.

Historic "sit in" vote: Mirroring the six-day protest that helped save more than 250 Republic Windows and Doors workers from losing their jobs last December, Hartmarx workers voted unanimously this morning in favor of a "sit in" style action. This means that if Wells Fargo or a new owner tries to begin liquidation or close the factory, the workers will respond by physically occupying the factory.

With more than 3,000 jobs hanging in the balance, employees want the factory's largest creditor and recipient of $25 billion in taxpayers' bailout funds, Wells Fargo, to help it reorganize instead of shutting it down. The public is standing behind the 130-year-old company and slamming Wells Fargo for shortsightedly refusing to invest in U.S. companies and workers.

Workers United members at the Hart Schaffner & Marx (known as Hartmarx) menswear factory in Des Plaines, IL, make suits for President Obama, but their jobs may not make the cut.

Despite receiving $25 billion in federal government-backed money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Wells Fargo, creditor for parent company Hartmarx, is putting short-term profits over the survival of this longstanding company by trying to force the suit maker into liquidation. A group of congressmen headed by U.S. Rep. Phil Hare--a former Hartmarx worker--is charging that by refusing to extend credit to Hartmarx and lowering its borrowing capacity, Wells Fargo is backpedaling on a promise to keep the firm afloat until it can be sold.

Why Wells Fargo isn't trying harder to keep Hartmarx alive?

Hartmarx employees are understandably angry over Wells Fargo's actions, which forced the company that has been producing high-quality clothing apparel for over 100 years to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January. "I can't believe that a bank that got some of this money would turn around and do us like this," said Ruby Sims, a 32-year employee of Hart Schaffner Marx menswear and president of the Chicago Midwest Region of Workers United, which represents 450 to 500 workers at the plant.

More and more, the situation seems similar to of the battle over Chicago's Republic Windows & Doors last year. In that instance, workers staged a peaceful sit-in in an effort to recover severance pay when the company shut down after Bank of America canceled its financing. Republic workers, political figures and millions of American taxpayers couldn't fathom how a bank that had just accepted $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money--money that was intended to get their credit flowing again--could not even manage to extend enough credit to the plant to meet its legal obligations to its workers. In the end, pressure from government officials, President-elect Obama and communities across the U.S. resulted in a victory for the workers.

It's not far-fetched to imagine circumstances playing out in a similar fashion as the Republic Windows & Doors sit-in, with Hartmarx workers declining to leave the plant if someone tries to shut it. As Joe Costigan, Treasurer of the Chicago region of Workers United said, "We're not going to rule anything like that out. We are not going to tolerate job destruction."

After all, don't you think taxpayers deserve some substantial proof that TARP is being used by its recipients for more than covering their own tails and lobbying against legislation that would improve the lives of workers? This might be a nice start.

Read about Representative Phil Hare and other members of Congress who are working to save 2,000 jobs at this 100 year-old company that bears the "Made in the USA" label.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user The Official White House Photostream.

Today, April 28, is Equal Pay Day, marking the point in 2009 when the average woman's wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2008. If you need to pause for a minute to consider what I'm saying here, you're probably not alone...in 2009, women have to work an extra four months (Jan - April) to match men's earnings. This is because women working full time, year-round are paid only about 78 cents for every dollar earned by men.

President John Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963--over four decades ago--yet the wage gap between men and women is narrowing by less than half a percent per year. The numbers get even more dismal when you break them down further: African-American women make 63 cents and Hispanic women make 52 cents for every dollar that a man receives in wages. These facts are true even when women make the same career choices as men and work the same hours--regardless, they still earn less.

---

Did you know?...SEIU has a long history in the struggle for fair pay for women. In 1979, SEIU was one of the original founders of the National Committee on Pay Equity, one of the very first organizations formed to educate, lobby and build coalitions on pay equity.

---

Thankfully, there's hope in the midst of this springtime air. Encouraging strides have been made in the twelve months since Fair Pay Day 2008 in giving women the ability to challenge unequal pay. The recently-enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act marks a critical first step in fighting pay discrimination.

Next up: The Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation, which has already passed in the House, would build on the success of the Ledbetter bill and deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the Equal Pay Act and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. Urge Your Senators to Support the Paycheck Fairness Act

There is much work still to be done to ensure that every worker earns a fair day's pay and I could give you at least 50 reasons why women deserve fair pay -- but I'll direct you instead to the National Women's Law Center, who released new state-by-state data on the wage gap. Gender wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. Find out where your state stands.