-
Best Candidates for Working People, 2018: Steve Sisolak Best Candidates for Working People, 2018: Steve Sisolak AFL-CIO This November's elections are shaping up to be among the most consequential in recent U.S. history. Throughout the summer and fall, we are taking a look at the best candidates for working people. Today, we feature Nevada gubernatorial candidate Steve Sisolak. Here are some of the key reasons why Sisolak is one of the best candidates for working people in 2018:
- As a former member of the Nevada Board of Regents, Sisolak was a champion for students and parents who fought for increased education funding.
- He will fight for higher teacher salaries and reduced class sizes.
- Sisolak wants to expand job training and vocational education in Nevada so more students graduate high school with career options. This includes promoting partnerships between technical training programs and employers.
- He will invest in clean technology. As Clark County commissioner, he helped recruit a solar manufacturer to the state, creating good-paying jobs.
- Sisolak will work to diversify the state's economy by bringing in new industries while also supporting Nevada's homegrown businesses.
- He will fight against the use of public funding for private schools.
- Sisolak wants to reduce the amount of debt students carry with them after they graduate college.
- He will support veterans and military families by supporting programs such as child care; K-12 education; science, technology, engineering and mathematics (or STEM) initiatives; and high school apprenticeships.
- Sisolak supports the state's health care exchange and will fight against any attempts to roll back Medicaid expansion.
- He believes both public and private employees have the right to collectively bargain.
- Sisolak will protect defined-benefit plans like the Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada.
-
Everyone Needs an ‘Equity Card’ Everyone Needs an ‘Equity Card’ Harmony Gerber The younger people in my life introduce me to songs they consider vintage but that are completely new to me. The Dead Kennedys, for example, are alive and well on my most recent playlist. And just this morning I heard, for the first time, "Work Bitch," by Britney Spears. As I listened to her sing "Bring it on/ring the alarm/don’t stop now/just be the champion," I added, in my best BritBrit voice, "and get a labor union, get some collective bargaining." (This is what it is like to ride in the car with me.) The movie "9 to 5" came out when I was in sixth grade. It was a hit, even in West Texas. The decade that was the '80s was full of "Work Bitch" songs—beats to sweat off the toxic stress of the union-busting Ronald Reagan era. But no "Eye of the Tiger" could compare with the thrill of the fight that Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda carried out together on screen. I had overheard grown women around me shaking their heads with a kind of laughter mixed with wistful, delayed revenge. When I saw the movie with friends in the theater, my laughter was mixed with dread. Is this what work looks like for grown women? Are there really bosses who actually pull this sort of crap with women? No wonder my mother and her friends wanted a labor union. When looking up more about Tomlin, the first news item to pop up was her recent interview with Shalini Dore for Variety, a source for "the Business of Entertainment" (Aug. 24, 2018). Tomlin recently has received yet another Emmy nomination for the TV series "Grace and Frankie." Right off the bat, Tomlin brings up her Equity card. Dore’s first question is about the first time Variety noted Tomlin’s work (in 1964) and Tomlin’s immediate response is "I got my Equity card then." Three sentences later, she repeats "It was terrific to get my Equity card." Yes, it was fantastic to be mentioned in Variety in 1964, but Tomlin impresses on Dore and Variety readers that this was the year she became part of the Actors’ Equity (AEA), a labor union that represents people working in live theater performance. She names for readers following "the Business of Entertainment" that her career in the business included, from the get-go, the collaborative kinship of courage that is collective bargaining. Mitchell Robinson teaches music education at Michigan StateUniversity, and he recently published a blog post that was picked up by Business Insider under this headline: "Beneath the 'heartwarming' teacher stories, there’s a real issue with the way public school teachers are treated." His essay names the lie behind the kind of "Work Bitch" news pieces published regularly in too many outlets—tales of individuals in public education whose "sacrifice" shows "resilience," "tenacity" and "dedication." In other words, stories about how one person’s effort is "making a difference" for families. Robinson concludes:
These stories aren’t "heartwarming" and they don’t show "dedication." They demonstrate that we as a society are unwilling to spend our resources on supporting and caring for the schools and teachers that we entrust with the support and care of our children—and refuse to treat the persons we entrust their care to as professionals or even as human beings deserving of our respect and some basic human dignity.
Journalist Adam Johnson has called these stories out as "perseverance porn." From coverage of NFL players to Hollywood actors to public school teachers, even liberal media outlets churn out features about individuals who contribute to sports, entertainment or education against all odds and alone. Meanwhile, the real news is that, against all odds and together, NFL players and public school teachers are, across the country, engaging in efforts to bargain collectively for the good of their sport, their teams and their schools. Even without a labor union, in states and in professions that try structurally to prohibit labor unions, they are engaging in union-like behavior. The three women working together in "9 to 5" fantasize about ways they can, individually, rectify their crooked workplace. Their revenge montages may appear campy today. But my sixth-grade self took note. You can pour yourself a "cup of ambition" (as Dolly sings). But what you really need is a group of co-workers who will have your back. Their collective courage on screen was inspiring, but I wanted more. I wanted a world where I didn’t need a gun, rat poison or rope at my workplace. Like Lily Tomlin, we each need an Equity card. We need one another for the collective courage that was and is collective bargaining. Amy Laura Hall has taught ethics at Duke University since 1999. Her most recent book is Laughing at the Devil: Seeing the World with Julian of Norwich. This post originally appeared at the North Carolina State AFL-CIO. Kenneth Quinnell Wed, 09/19/2018 - 09:16 — Sep 19 -
Best Candidates for Working People, 2018 Best Candidates for Working People, 2018 . This November's elections are shaping up to be among the most consequential in recent U.S. history. Throughout the summer and fall, we are taking a look at the best candidates for working people. Here are the candidates we've covered so far!
- Stacey Abrams (Ga.), governor
- Randy Bryce (Wis.), U.S. House
- Rich Cordray (Ohio), governor
- Andrew Gillum (Fla.), governor
- Jared Golden (Maine), U.S. House
- Jahana Hayes (Conn.), U.S. House
- Andy Levin (Mich.), U.S. House
- Mahlon Mitchell (Wis.), governor
- Bill Nelson (Fla.), U.S. Senate
- Jacky Rosen (Nev.), U.S. Senate
- Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), U.S. Senate
- Steve Sisolak (Nev.), governor
- Tina Smith (Minn.), U.S. Senate
- Jon Tester (Mont.), U.S. Senate
- Tim Walz (Minn.), governor
- Gretchen Whitmer (Mich.), governor
-
You Can Be Fired for Not Showing Up to Work During a Hurricane You Can Be Fired for Not Showing Up to Work During a Hurricane Jobs With Justice Ahead of a natural disaster like Hurricane Florence, politicians and safety officials tell the public to evacuate early and not wait until conditions get bad. We all know that you can lose your home and your belongings, but politicians never talk about the fact that during a disaster, many people can lose their jobs as well. Even when there are mandatory evacuation orders, many businesses insist that employees still show up for work. Many more won’t pay employees for time missed ahead of, during and after a storm. This forces many to make an impossible choice between protecting their lives or protecting their jobs. In September 2017, Hurricane Irma wrecked vast portions of Florida. In its wake, Irma left many Floridians without power, shelter or essential belongings. Worse, the impact of the storm meant many people did not know how they would earn their next paycheck. Some lost their jobs because they couldn’t make it into work during the storm, while others were left unemployed after businesses had to shut down for repairs. After hearing about employer threats against people who were evacuating instead of going to work during the hurricane, Central Florida Jobs With Justice conducted a survey to determine how widespread the practice of requiring employees to show up to work in the middle of a Category 4 hurricane really was. What they found was striking. More than half of those who responded to the survey said they faced disciplinary action or termination if they failed to show up to work during the storm. Others didn’t have to show up to work, but weren’t paid if they couldn’t make it during the evacuation, putting similar pressures on them to show up even in the worst conditions. To put it bluntly: Even in the middle of a hurricane, many businesses still put their own profits over the well-being of their employees. But this isn’t the way things have to be. In the wake of Hurricane Irma, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who comply with evacuation orders during a state of emergency, and some employers are taking the initiative to put "climate leave” policies in writing. However, the number of communities and companies with such policies is small and likely will remain so until working people are able to band together to demand protection from the increasing threat of hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters. And while federal programs already exist that provide assistance to people put out of work due to disasters, they need to be strengthened and expanded at the state and local levels. As our climate changes, we can expect stronger hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters. Recent hurricanes like Harvey, Irma, Maria and now Florence have impacted millions of people, disrupting lives, destroying communities and killing thousands. The struggles that individuals face before, during and after a major event like Irma or Florence are already great enough without adding the stress of losing your job or wondering when you’ll get your next paycheck. Now is the time to write new rules to ensure working people can protect themselves and their livelihoods before, during and after big disasters. We know that the climate crisis is already hurting poor people more severely than the wealthy. There’s no need to exacerbate this inequality and force people to lose a paycheck or their job due to our man-made climate crisis. This post originally appeared at Jobs With Justice. Kenneth Quinnell Tue, 09/18/2018 - 10:22 — Sep 18
-
What's Up with NAFTA, Anyway? Some Frequently Asked Questions What's Up with NAFTA, Anyway? Some Frequently Asked Questions I’ve been getting so many questions about NAFTA, I thought I’d answer a few for everyone. Why are they renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement? I thought NAFTA was bad. NAFTA is bad. But the reason NAFTA is bad is not because trade is bad, or even that trading with Mexico and Canada is bad. NAFTA is bad because it is a set of rules that gives advantages to employers over workers, multinational companies over local firms, and giant corporations over communities. It has cost jobs and pushed down wages in all three countries. In particular, NAFTA set up incentives to outsource U.S. jobs (by lowering tariffs on imports from Mexico) without requiring firms that operate there to meet basic international labor standards or minimum protections for the environment. It also incentivized additional outsourcing by creating a private justice system for firms that allows them to bypass local courts and go straight to international tribunals to argue that some health and safety standard or water protection rule or any other action by a host government deprives them of their expected profits. NAFTA’s rules empower global employers, undermine unions, and weaken the ability of local, state and federal governments to be responsive to citizens. NAFTA does not have to be this way. Its rules can be changed to put working people first. And that requires renegotiation. I heard they’re finished renegotiating NAFTA. Are they? Not really. On Aug. 31, the president sent notice to Congress that he had concluded negotiations with Mexico and intended to sign a deal with Mexico in 90 days (this waiting period is required by the Fast Track law). Canada was not included in this announcement, but can be included in a final deal "if it is willing." Since talks are ongoing with Canada, and Mexico would have to agree to any changes made to accommodate Canada, the renegotiations aren’t really over. That means we have a chance to improve its labor rules and add other things important to workers, such as COOL labeling. So, is Canada in or out? The talks are ongoing. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and others have made clear Canada should be included, but whether it will be remains to be determined. (Watch a video here.) Does Congress have to vote on a new NAFTA? Yes. When will Congress vote? It seems likely that, assuming a final-final deal is reached this fall, the vote would occur in 2019. Will the AFL-CIO support the new deal? That depends on what the new deal looks like and how close it comes to meeting the 17 benchmarks we set out in June 2017. We don’t expect a new deal to be perfect or to incorporate every one of our recommendations. However, it must include Canada, show meaningful progress on critical issues, including by reducing incentives to outsource, protecting fundamental labor rights and freedoms for working people in all three countries, eliminating the private justice system for foreign investors known as ISDS, promoting greater North American content—particularly U.S. content—in NAFTA-traded goods, and by strengthening enforcement, not just on labor, but on all trade issues, including currency manipulation and misalignment. On labor in particular, if the deal does not include strong and clear rules that protect working people in all three countries and require Mexico to abandon its "protection contract" system (which keeps wages down and interferes with the right to join unions), and if we cannot be confident that the rules will be swiftly and certainly enforced, it won’t be worth endorsing. A deal that doesn’t get the labor provisions and enforcement tools right won’t protect U.S., Mexican or Canadian workers and won’t reduce outsourcing. A deal that allows abuse and exploitation of working people to continue is just another corporate deal. So...where is the text? Most of the text is available to "cleared advisers" (which includes the AFL-CIO) now. Trumka and officers of both affiliate and non-affiliate unions who serve as cleared advisers are studying the text right now. Unfortunately, due to the secrecy allowed under Fast Track, the text won’t be available to the public until after Sept. 27, 2018. Do we know what it is in it? A bit, but most of the contents are still secret. We know the labor rules are on the right track, but they do not yet include swift and certain enforcement mechanisms. We know there will be changes to ISDS that appear to be in the right direction and changes to medicine rules that appear to be in the wrong direction. And we need to learn a lot more about automobile rules of origin to figure out if they will actually promote high wage U.S. jobs. Look for more information after Sept. 27 at aflcio.org. When will we know if the deal meets our standards? Trumka and other labor leaders said on Aug. 31 that, based on what we know so far, "more work needs to be done" for the deal to meet our standards, including, most importantly, enforcement tools that will ensure that all parties live up to their labor obligations and that Mexico ends it repressive protection contract system. But, since talks are continuing, that means we have an opportunity to get that work done. This is not over and the text isn’t really final. That’s where you come in. We need your help. How can I help? You can call or email your senator and tell them to contact U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (the U.S. lead on the NAFTA talks) to make clear that in order to get approval in Congress, the new deal must:
- Include strong and clear labor standards based on the International Labor Organization’s fundamental labor rights and end the protection contract system in Mexico.
- Include enforcement tools that will make certain that violations are swiftly identified and fixed—or else sanctions will be promptly imposed.
- Eliminate ISDS (the private justice system for foreign investors) and other incentives to outsource (including in both manufacturing sectors such as auto, aerospace, steel and aluminum and in services sectors such transportation and call centers); and
- Put working people’s interests ahead of profits, including by eliminating giveaways to Wall Street and Big Pharma and ensuring that we can protect our food supply and provide consumers the information they want about the products they buy.