L ast night MSNBC's Rachel Maddow took on the radical right-wingers seeking to silence working families by attacking progressive community organizations. As part of that segment, she discussed with Peter Dreier, professor of politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles, why they're trying to target the SEIU next.

Watch the clip here:

You can watch the entire segment right here.

In 2002, Senator Ted Kennedy walked the picket lines, held a press conference, and rallied public support for 10,000 Massachusetts janitors fighting for their first contract. His dedication and continued presence throughout the long negotiations helped some of Massachusetts hardest-working and most underpaid workers win a livable wage and access to healthcare----even for part-time janitors.

The year before that, Kennedy stood with several hundred students, activists and SEIU Local 254 (now Local 615) protesting Harvard's failure to provide a ''living wage'' of $10.25 to all its employees, including property service workers. He wrote these words in a letter he sent to activists and workers before their sit-in began:

I have always believed that workers in this great country of ours deserve a living wage.

The issue of whether employers should pay a living wage is a question of the dignity of workers. Are we as a community going to respect individuals that work long and hard, who care for their families, who are our neighbors and friends, who take great pride in their work? I firmly believe that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty, and I think most Americans understand that, too.

Whether you are employed directly by Harvard or by subcontractors, whether you are full-time or part-time, you perform difficult work with pride and dignity and you deserve to be treated fairly.

Then again in 2006, Kennedy was there for over 250 Harvard security officers who were fighting for a contract. He used whatever connections he had to get the employers to do the right thing. In 2007, he stood in support of janitors trying to get a renewed contract and sent letters of support--they ended up getting a wage that was close to $13.

"From the fight for decent wages and benefits to his pioneering work on healthcare and immigration reform, Kennedy was there, always championing the little guy," recalled Rocio Saenz, President of SEIU Local 615 in Boston and Vice President of SEIU International. "With all of the fights to improve the lives of our workers, he was there. When we won the contract, he was on top of it. He would call and say "this is just so great--such great news for workers..."

Learn more about Senator Kennedy's legacy on SEIU.org, and help us honor him by sharing your memories. Sign our online card to Senator Kennedy's family.

In yesterday's "Fair Pay for Caregivers," the New York Times editorial team urged the Department of Labor to change the regulation within the Fair Labor Standards Act that classifies home care workers as "companions," making them exempt from minimum wage protections and overtime pay. Citing the hard work and critical role they play with an aging boomer population, the NY Times editorial declares that "Home care aides should not have to wait any longer for the fair pay they have been denied for so long."

It's been over two years since the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the 1974 interpretation of the FLSA law ("Long Island Care at Home v. Coke"), denying home care workers a living wage and overtime compensation. That definition of the law essentially put the teenager who occasionally watches your kids on the same level with a worker trained to provide full-time and long term care for seniors and disabled persons with essential care needs. Under a new administration, this ruling did give the Labor Department--not the court--the right to change that interpretation under a new administration. However, more than two years later, the regulation still stands.

Sadly, one of the women who played a leading role in the fight for increased wages and paid overtime for in-home care aides, Mrs. Evelyn Coke, passed away today. Ms. Coke was the plaintiff in the "Long Island Care at Home v. Coke" case challenging the "companionship exemption" for home care workers. Read more about Mrs. Coke in the New York Times article highlighting her struggle for justice and a fair wage.

Support to extend federal overtime and minimum-wage requirements to home care workers--a growing labor force that earns average hourly wages lower than that of all other jobs in healthcare--has been increased in recent months. In June, a group of 15 Senators led by Senator Harkins (D-IA) sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis advocating for the Department of Labor to expand federal wage and hour laws to the estimated 1.5 million home care workers in the U.S.

"In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long-term care services in their homes rather than in institution," reads the letter sent to the DOL.

Secretary Solis responded with a statement saying she shares the concerns of the Senators who are advocating for fair treatment of home care workers, telling an AP reporter that her department was looking into whether the exemption should be overturned. Since that time, no real steps have been taken towards the federal reform that is urgently needed to provide home care workers with the compensation and respect they deserve. Please ask Department of Labor Secretary Solis to include home care workers in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act

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?

A group of 15 Senators led by Senator Harkins (D-IA) have sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, urging the Department of Labor to expand federal wage and hour laws to an estimated 1.5 million home care workers in the U.S., one of the fastest-growing professions in the country today.

In-home care providers belong to a growing labor force that earns average hourly wages lower than that of all other jobs in healthcare. These front-line caregivers also lack employment security, healthcare benefits, or even workers' compensation.

When the Department of Labor (DOL) amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1974 to cover domestic workers, it was to address concerns that wage and overtime protections would be extendeded to "companionship services" provided by teenagers, family members or friends on an occasional or informal basis [example: babysitters].

In reality, the FLSA has been anything but fair when it comes to home care workers. In the summer of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the 1974 interpretation of the FLSA law ("Long Island Care at Home v. Coke"), which excludes home care workers. The Court's decision to deny home care workers a living wage and overtime compensation by upholding the "companionship exemption" essentially put the teenager who occasionally watches your kids on the same level with a worker trained to provide full-time and long-term care for seniors and disabled persons with essential care needs.

However, this 2007 court ruling also gives the agency -- under a new administration -- the right to change that interpretation. "[...] A professional caretaker is simply not the type of informal and casual relationship that Congress sought to exempt," reads the letter to the DOL.

"In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long-term care services in their homes rather than in institutions. Home care, increasingly, has become not casual work performed by a friend or family member but a full-time regular type of employment.

"It is critical that these professional workers, who provide essential services to our nation's elderly and disabled, have the same right to minimum wage and overtime pay as enjoyed by other workers."

SEIU, as part of a coalition that aims to shave $2 million in healthcare spending by implementing changes to care delivery in the long term care field, sent a letter to the Obama administration last week recommending cost savings by expanding home- and community-based services. Secretary Solis said on Friday that she shares the concerns of the Senators who are advocating for fair treatment of home care workers. "As secretary of labor, I intend to fulfill the department's mandate to protect America's workers, including home health care aides, who work demanding work schedules and receive low wages," Solis said.

If you want quality care, make home care work a quality job

Last week, home care workers in Ontario voted in favor of joining SEIU. In a vote held by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, personal support workers employed by the Victorian Order of Nurses in Brampton and Mississauga voted 83 percent in favor of joining SEIU Local 1 Canada. This past Monday, more good news raising the quality of life for home care aides broke, as 780 home care workers from Addus Healthcare became the first long term care workers to join SEIU Local 1107. They are the latest workers, along with those joining Local 1 Canada, to join SEIU in their growing campaign to raise standards and improve the quality of home care across North America.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, one of the fastest growing areas in health care is home health aides. But dedicated home care providers are frustrated by a system that often does not pay a living wage or offer health benefits. In 2008, a full-time home health aide made an average of $14,000. Thirty-six percent of home health aides in this country are uninsured and forty-five percent live below the federal poverty level income.