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.

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.

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.

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.

Today's increase means a full-time minimum wage earner will receive $28 more a week. This raise is badly needed. It is also categorically insufficient.

While our nation's plunge into recession has forced many working families to tighten their belts, low-wage workers have fared even worse. The decade between 1997 and 2007 was the longest period in history without a minimum wage increase--but even with this wage hike, minimum wage workers will still make less than they did in 1956, after adjusting for inflation.

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King said, "We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life." How is it possible that his statement would still ring true 40 years later? Recent raises are so little, so late that even with the increase, America's minimum wage is still 17 percent lower than its peak in 1968. In fact, it would take $9.83 today to match the buying power of the minimum wage of 1968.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimates that some 10 million workers--those at the minimum wage or just above it--will benefit from the increase. But the facts remain that an individual earning $7.25 an hour in a standard 2,000-hour work year would earn $14,500 per year...a salary which is still slightly below the 2009 federal poverty level for a family of two. While corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, workers are not getting . As the minimum wage fell 22% in real dollars from 1973 to 2007, corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, jumping more than 50% during the same time period. Statistics like these just reinforce that sad reality that although Americans are working harder than ever, they are not reaping the fair share of the profits their labor work is creating.

Although the federal minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour reflects a growing understanding that workers face enormous financial burdens, it's not nearly enough. A NY Times editorial points out: "The latest increase will slow the decline in living standards, but it doesn't reverse the overall downward pull." But it doesn't have to be this way, says SEIU's Anna Burger:

"For millions of hardworking Americans, their only opportunity for a raise is controlled by which way the political wind blows in Washington...Congress must pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow workers to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and benefits to ensure that millions more Americans have good jobs with real benefits and a pathway to the middle class."

It's time to break the cycle of too little, too late raises. We can't build a strong, sustainable economy if a growing share of business revenue continues to go to executive pay and profits--we need to level the playing field. The thousands of people who have already taken action know that majority sign-up is still, bar none, the fairest way for workers to negotiate for better job security and wages.

It's important that both the House and the Senate see how much support there is for majority sign-up and the Employee Free Choice Act--so please add your name to the petition today.

Today's increase means a full-time minimum wage earner will receive $28 more a week. This raise is badly needed. It is also categorically insufficient.

While our nation's plunge into recession has forced many working families to tighten their belts, low-wage workers have fared even worse. The decade between 1997 and 2007 was the longest period in history without a minimum wage increase--but even with this wage hike, minimum wage workers will still make less than they did in 1956, after adjusting for inflation.

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King said, "We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life." How is it possible that his statement would still ring true 40 years later? Recent raises are so little, so late that even with the increase, America's minimum wage is still 17 percent lower than its peak in 1968. In fact, it would take $9.83 today to match the buying power of the minimum wage of 1968.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimates that some 10 million workers--those at the minimum wage or just above it--will benefit from the increase. But the facts remain that an individual earning $7.25 an hour in a standard 2,000-hour work year would earn $14,500 per year...a salary which is still slightly below the 2009 federal poverty level for a family of two. While corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, workers are not getting . As the minimum wage fell 22% in real dollars from 1973 to 2007, corporate profits have grown steadily in the past several decades, jumping more than 50% during the same time period. Statistics like these just reinforce that sad reality that although Americans are working harder than ever, they are not reaping the fair share of the profits their labor work is creating.

Although the federal minimum wage increase from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour reflects a growing understanding that workers face enormous financial burdens, it's not nearly enough. A NY Times editorial points out: "The latest increase will slow the decline in living standards, but it doesn't reverse the overall downward pull." But it doesn't have to be this way, says SEIU's Anna Burger:

"For millions of hardworking Americans, their only opportunity for a raise is controlled by which way the political wind blows in Washington...Congress must pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow workers to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and benefits to ensure that millions more Americans have good jobs with real benefits and a pathway to the middle class."

It's time to break the cycle of too little, too late raises. We can't build a strong, sustainable economy if a growing share of business revenue continues to go to executive pay and profits--we need to level the playing field. The thousands of people who have already taken action know that majority sign-up is still, bar none, the fairest way for workers to negotiate for better job security and wages.

It's important that both the House and the Senate see how much support there is for majority sign-up and the Employee Free Choice Act--so please add your name to the petition today.

On June 9, dozens of janitors laid off from Cisco Systems in San Jose, CA ended a 7-day hunger fast protesting the company's corporate greed and unfair treatment. Check out this new video SEIU United Service Workers West created documenting the breaking of the fast:

The janitors at Cisco Systems first began protesting the corporation--which currently has more than $34 billion in cash assets on hand--when contractor ABM Industries Inc. laid off more than 40 percent of its total janitorial workforce in February. The janitors that remain on the job at Cisco are now being forced to shoulder higher workloads.

The important principle these fasting janitors have sacrificed so much to make: a company that has $34 billion in cash assets and paid its CEO $18.8 million last year shouldn't just stand by while $12-an-hour workers are let go by the contractor Cisco hired to work on its campus.

During the school year in New Jersey, school lunch is provided at a reduced cost or for free to thousands of poor students to help eliminate at least one significant and widely recognized barrier to an education: hunger. The number of students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunches was up about 5 percent nationwide this spring, to nearly 19.4 million from 18.4 million the previous year, according to federal officials. These numbers were reflected in New Jersey's numbers as the number of NJ students receiving free and lower-cost lunches grew by 11 percent to over 340,000 during the 2008-2009 school year.

The economic downturn has left many families barely able to put food on the table, and school meals have been reported as a critical source of family food and nutrition for millions of America's children. But what happens to these children of low-income families when school lets out for the summer--do they just go without breakfast and lunch until September?

Thanks to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Summer Food Service Program, the answer to this question is 'no.' Across the state of New Jersey, camps and food pantries have geared up to meet an increasing need for more feeding locations.

Fernando Cruz puts in 40 hour weeks at the Con Ed power plant at 14th St. and Avenue C in NYC. For his hard work, the father of two is paid $8.50 an hour, with no real health care and benefits. This results in a weekly take-home pay of around $300--not nearly enough pay his bills and support his family.

Fernando is one of more than 28 million people--about a quarter of the working-age workforce--who work full time yet still earn less than the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four: $9.04 per hour, a full-time salary of $18,800 a year. Although the 40-hour week is still considered the benchmark in American work culture, the fact is that working "9-to-5" for millions of low-wage workers doesn't result in financial compensation equaling that of a living wage...and so every day, workers like Fernando fall farther and farther behind.

Right now, the cleaning contractors Con Ed uses at its plants, offices and electrical substations across the city are Nelson Services, Apple Maintenance, T&T Cleaning and Janitorial, Accent Maintenance and Martinez Cleaning. SEIU 32BJ is demanding that Con Ed CEO Kevin Burke hire cleaning contractors that provide workers the wages and benefits they need to support their families. "What Con Ed is doing by not assuming responsibility [for the workers their contractors is promoting hunger wages," says 32BJ secretary-treasurer Héctor Figueroa.

Figueroa said the union has met with a VP of Con Ed to discuss the matter of contractors hired by the energy company not giving employees health benefits, sick leave or pensions, along with paying them only $8.50/hour. Their efforts were met with a "tough luck" response from the VP. "He told us that he was 'very sorry,' but that because these workers were not their employees, he didn't think this was Con Ed's problem," Figueroa reported to NY Daily News.

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?

Shouldn't we ask whether it's morally defensible for a top executive to accept tens of millions in pay while he is destroying the lives of his workers?

As janitors and community supporters continue their hunger strike outside of Cisco Systems corporate headquarters in San Jose, Mercury News columnist Mike Cassidy has written a thought-provoking column about the corporate strategy of treating layoffs as 'par-for-the-course' events that are the cost of doing business in this downtrodden economy.

Cassidy points to the disparity between the blasé attitude the tone of conversations surrounding layoffs have taken on and the real-life devastation that large-scale layoffs cause for people, families, and communities. (One example of this 'detached' attitude that springs to mind is Bank of America ex-chairman Ken Lewis, whose response when asked about the job cuts BofA delivered to nearly 35,000 of its employees in April showed little care for his employees.)

"I understand that at times, in the interest of survival or reinvention, companies must pare down or realign their work forces. I know that this is one of the worst economies since the Great Depression...

But that doesn't mean we can ignore the way massive job losses, including from profitable companies with extravagantly paid executives, are choking the life out of our economy and our communities. People who don't work don't buy things or keep current on their mortgages. Stores close. Homes go vacant. Neighborhoods and commercial districts shrivel up.

Cassidy also rightly points to the hypocrisy of corporate executives such as Cisco's multimillionaire CEO John Chambers, who appears to be one of many high-powered executives not reported to have considered making cuts to their high-dollar salaries and compensation packages a regular business practice in lean times.

The important principle these fasting janitors are sacrificing so much to make: a company that has $34 billion in cash assets and paid its CEO $18.8 million last year shouldn't just stand by while $12-an-hour workers are let go by the contractor Cisco hired to work on its campus. The question "what choice did we have?" from a chief executive in the face of shattering company layoffs shouldn't be rhetorical, says Cassidy. This question, he says, "should be put to business leaders by the press and politicians. We should all be talking about it. Isn't there another way?"

Justice for Cisco Janitors has estimated that it would cost just a month and half of Cisco CEO Chambers' salary, or a little more than $1 million, to bring back all of the 70+ laid-off janitors of SEIU Local 1877 to work for the rest of this year. Please stand with these janitors--who are currently in Day 6 of their hunger strike--as they demand justice for the janitors at Cisco Systems and stand up to all the corporations who are deaf to the kitchen-table concerns of middle class Americans.

Click here to send a letter to Cisco Chairman and CEO John Chambers or visit http://seiuaction.org/campaign/justiceatcisco

Shouldn't we ask whether it's morally defensible for a top executive to accept tens of millions in pay while he is destroying the lives of his workers?

As janitors and community supporters continue their hunger strike outside of Cisco Systems corporate headquarters in San Jose, Mercury News columnist Mike Cassidy has written a thought-provoking column about the corporate strategy of treating layoffs as 'par-for-the-course' events that are the cost of doing business in this downtrodden economy.

Cassidy points to the disparity between the blasé attitude the tone of conversations surrounding layoffs have taken on and the real-life devastation that large-scale layoffs cause for people, families, and communities. (One example of this 'detached' attitude that springs to mind is Bank of America ex-chairman Ken Lewis, whose response when asked about the job cuts BofA delivered to nearly 35,000 of its employees in April showed little care for his employees.)

"I understand that at times, in the interest of survival or reinvention, companies must pare down or realign their work forces. I know that this is one of the worst economies since the Great Depression...

But that doesn't mean we can ignore the way massive job losses, including from profitable companies with extravagantly paid executives, are choking the life out of our economy and our communities. People who don't work don't buy things or keep current on their mortgages. Stores close. Homes go vacant. Neighborhoods and commercial districts shrivel up.

Cassidy also rightly points to the hypocrisy of corporate executives such as Cisco's multimillionaire CEO John Chambers, who appears to be one of many high-powered executives not reported to have considered making cuts to their high-dollar salaries and compensation packages a regular business practice in lean times.

The important principle these fasting janitors are sacrificing so much to make: a company that has $34 billion in cash assets and paid its CEO $18.8 million last year shouldn't just stand by while $12-an-hour workers are let go by the contractor Cisco hired to work on its campus. The question "what choice did we have?" from a chief executive in the face of shattering company layoffs shouldn't be rhetorical, says Cassidy. This question, he says, "should be put to business leaders by the press and politicians. We should all be talking about it. Isn't there another way?"

Justice for Cisco Janitors has estimated that it would cost just a month and half of Cisco CEO Chambers' salary, or a little more than $1 million, to bring back all of the 70+ laid-off janitors of SEIU Local 1877 to work for the rest of this year. Please stand with these janitors--who are currently in Day 6 of their hunger strike--as they demand justice for the janitors at Cisco Systems and stand up to all the corporations who are deaf to the kitchen-table concerns of middle class Americans.

Click here to send a letter to Cisco Chairman and CEO John Chambers or visit http://seiuaction.org/campaign/justiceatcisco

For two days now, dozens of janitors, members of faith and community supporters have had absolutely nothing to eat, only drinking water as they determinedly camp out outside of Cisco System's corporate headquarters in San Jose. This fasting will go on for at least another five days, with new participants joining the fast each day at 1 p.m., when a religious leader from the Interfaith Council will conduct a ceremony blessing them.

The janitors at Cisco Systems began protesting the corporation--which currently has more than $34 billion in cash assets on hand--when contractor ABM Industries Inc. laid off more than 40 percent of its total janitorial workforce in February. The janitors that remain on the job at Cisco are now being forced to shoulder higher workloads. Shouldn't more work = more pay? Cisco doesn't think so. The only thing these janitors have experienced an increase in since their coworkers were laid off is the threat to their health and safety.

The hopeful outcome of this fast? That Cisco will live up to its claims of "corporate social responsibility" and put the common good ahead of corporate greed by reinstating the laid-off janitors.

Targeting low-wage service workers for layoffs while protecting enormous profits is a sad pattern we've seen emerge more and more in recent months from big corporations. We'll bring you more about the janitors' struggle in the coming days. In the meantime, visit www.justiceatcisco.com and check out photos from Day 1 of the fast here.

Take action to support these fasting janitors by sending a letter to Cisco CEO John Chambers now.

For two days now, dozens of janitors, members of faith and community supporters have had absolutely nothing to eat, only drinking water as they determinedly camp out outside of Cisco System's corporate headquarters in San Jose. This fasting will go on for at least another five days, with new participants joining the fast each day at 1 p.m., when a religious leader from the Interfaith Council will conduct a ceremony blessing them.

The janitors at Cisco Systems began protesting the corporation--which currently has more than $34 billion in cash assets on hand--when contractor ABM Industries Inc. laid off more than 40 percent of its total janitorial workforce in February. The janitors that remain on the job at Cisco are now being forced to shoulder higher workloads. Shouldn't more work = more pay? Cisco doesn't think so. The only thing these janitors have experienced an increase in since their coworkers were laid off is the threat to their health and safety.

The hopeful outcome of this fast? That Cisco will live up to its claims of "corporate social responsibility" and put the common good ahead of corporate greed by reinstating the laid-off janitors.

Targeting low-wage service workers for layoffs while protecting enormous profits is a sad pattern we've seen emerge more and more in recent months from big corporations. We'll bring you more about the janitors' struggle in the coming days. In the meantime, visit www.justiceatcisco.com and check out photos from Day 1 of the fast here.

Take action to support these fasting janitors by sending a letter to Cisco CEO John Chambers now.

"Hard-working Americans deserve to know that they can go see a doctor without losing their job," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, in response to the introduction of the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 2460) to both sides of Congress last week by Senator Kennedy and Representative DeLauro. The legislation would allow workers to earn up to 7 days of paid sick time, with an accrual of one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shows that the United States is dead last among 22 industrial countries that fail to guarantee their workers some form of paid sick leave. Good health isn't just encompassed in having decent health coverage--it's also the ability to care for oneself or one's family members when sick, and to help prevent the spread of contagious diseases through the workplace. But what can you do when you have a job where you don't have any paid sick days for yourself, much less paid days off to care for a sick child?

This is the sad state of affairs for far too many of our nation's workers. Nearly half of private-sector workers in this country have no paid sick days, and low-income workers are doing even worse--76 percent have no paid sick leave. Overall, 57 million private-sector workers have no paid sick days, and 94 million cannot use their paid sick leave to stay home and care for an unwell child. Labor unions, business leaders and lawmakers see the bill as a compliment to real healthcare reform, as well as part of a larger move to improve workplace standards.

Meanwhile, Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida has introduced one of my favorite bills of the year--the Paid Vacation Act of 2009. It is the first paid vacation bill in U.S. history--which is a big deal, ladies and gentlemen! If passed, the bill will at minimum "require one week of paid vacation for employees of companies with at least 100 employees" after one year on the job. From Politico on the concept of the bill:

The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.

"There's a reason why Disney World is the happiest place on Earth: The people who go there are on vacation," said Grayson, a freshman who counts Orlando as part of his home district. "Honestly, as much as I appreciate this job and as much as I enjoy it, the best days of my life are and always have been the days I'm on vacation."

"Every worker should have paid sick days," said bill sponsor Rep. DeLauro at a Capitol Hill last week. "It is a matter of right and wrong : [it] is a matter of values. The time for this is now." Tell Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act.

On Thursday, hundreds of Chicago janitors and supporters rallied at Fifth Third Bank in Schaumburg to call for good jobs and an economic recovery that works for everyone, not just the people at the top. Janitors marched from Woodfield Mall to the bank, chanting loudly and holding purple banners reading "Value Work."

Fifth Third Bank took $3.4 billion in taxpayer-funded bailout money, and CEO Kevin Kabat was paid over $200,000--more than seven times the average teller's annual pay--for perks like country club dues, parking and estate planning. Fifth Third Bank's CEO also received a base salary increase from the year before, as well as stock and option awards valued at about $1.9 million on the days they were granted.

The average salary for a downtown janitor is about $1,950 a month, with suburban janitors making even less than that.

Thursday's march builds on momentum from the rally held earlier in the week, when 3,300 janitors marched through downtown Chicago to call on Bank of America and other banks to use federal bailout money to create jobs that will strengthen the economy, instead of paying executives excessive salaries and bonuses. Both rallies are part of an effort by SEIU Local 1 janitors and community supporters to call attention to low-wage workers struggling to keep afloat in a time when corporate CEOs are still getting multimillion dollar compensation and bonuses.

With more hardworking Americans losing their jobs and their homes every day, janitors want to protect and create good jobs that will help get this country's financial system back on track. "We're here to show that we're important in this economy too," said Alexandra Figus, who's worked as a janitor for 29 years. "We have families and homes. Our homes are going into foreclosure. I'm a mother. I have a family. That's why I'm here. We need job security."

Thursday's rally occurs as nearly 15,000 SEIU Local 1 janitors begin contract negotiations with the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Chicago, including 3,000 janitors who work in suburban office buildings. The current agreement expires April 5.

On Sunday afternoon, over 3,000 janitors and community supporters crowded into the historic Chicago Theater and then marched to LaSalle Street in an effort to call attention to low-wage workers struggling to keep afloat in a time when corporate CEOs are still getting bonuses.

SEIU Local 1 janitors and other rally participants spoke about bailed-out banks--such as Bank of America--who paid huge bonuses to well-compensated executives at the same time they were eliminating jobs in the working- and middle-class sectors. "Instead of using taxpayer money to save jobs, Bank of America approved $4 billion for executive bonuses," said Urszula Przybys, a downtown janitor. "Those executives are secure and we're barely making it. They are not even being asked to take responsibility for the mess they created, but we're paying for their mistakes."

With $4 billion, Bank of America could have created nearly 175,000 jobs at an average bank teller's annual salary of $22,901. "Communities need good jobs, not more money put into pockets of the richest Americans and big corporations," said Tom Balanoff, President of SEIU Local 1.

Chicago janitors work hard to keep our community's buildings, schools and public areas sanitary, cleaning the equivalent of nearly 33,000 miles of office space every night. They work hard in a relatively thankless job with few perks, as they struggle to pay their mortgages and create a better life for their children. "We need to send a strong message that janitors deserve a living wage and better benefit," Alderman Ricardo Munoz told the audience during the Chicago Theater event.

According to the EPI, the average Chicago janitor makes $23,400 a year--not nearly enough to meet the cost of living for a family of four in the Chicago area. "We know it's tough times," said SEIU Local 1 spokeswoman Erica Hade to the Chicago Sun-Times. "Everybody is struggling. Working people are struggling to pay their mortgages and make ends meet. But we think there needs to be a partnership between everyone who's hurting to try to get our economy back on track."

The rally occurs as nearly 15,000 SEIU Local 1 janitors begin contract negotiations with the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Chicago in a few days' time. Their union contract expires April 5. A second rally is scheduled for March 5 at the Fifth Third Bank in Schaumburg--stay tuned for more details later in the week.

Watch video coverage from the event here :

(video courtesy of Progress Illinois)

SEIU Leader Shares First-hand Experiences Trying to Organize Detroit Fast Food Workers in the 1980s

In 1980, the United Labor Unions set out to organize employees at Detroit fast food chains in the hopes of sparking a nationwide movement to unionize the workforce in this fast-growing industry. As a rookie organizer working on the campaign, I learned firsthand what is at stake when workers stand up for better wages, healthcare, and a voice on the job.

We started with a Burger King franchise in Detroit's Greyhound station. While the drive was a challenge, the spark spread between employees as they encouraged each other to join the union and stand up to their managers. Greyhound Food Management ran a tough campaign to keep workers from organizing -- threatening some, making promises to others -- but didn't succeed. By a margin of just one vote, the Burger King employees opted to create a union.

Encouraged by our victory, we shifted our focus to three McDonald's franchises on Detroit's North Side. The employees were struggling with all kinds of issues -- minimum wage violations, sexual harassment, unfair scheduling, and health and safety issues ranging from grill burns to meat slicer injuries. Fed up and fired up, they decided to organize a union and won overwhelming support from their co-workers. Nothing could stop them.

Or so they thought.