[Back]
[Home]
[Up]
[Next]

INSIDE UNION LABOR

2010 And Beyond
Return to the Political Page       Media Committee:  Jeff Welle
What does this country and its leadership have in store for us in the 4 years to come... This page will delve into Politics, News and Issues that will affect the Unionized Labor Industry and how these changes will affect us.

Both Sides Agree: Address Jobs Now and Deficits Later

Earlier this week I testified before Congressman Barney Frank's committee on the need to do more -- much more -- to create jobs. The unfortunate but unavoidable fact, I told the Committee, is that the private sector won't create jobs in sufficient numbers anytime soon to put a dent in the massive joblessness the country is experiencing.

Republicans on the Committee didn't like what I had to say. They claim the Recovery Act hasn't created any jobs (even though many of them have touted Recovery Act-funded projects in their districts which, they baldly announce, will create good jobs for their constituents). They argue that spending more on job creation would be throwing good money after bad.

They are totally wrong on both counts. As the independent Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the jobs crisis would be far worse without the Recovery Act. And additional properly targeted spending could create millions more jobs.

Still, there are many reasonable people -- Republicans and Democrats -- who are concerned that more spending on job creation will worsen our budget problems at a time when annual deficits already exceed a trillion dollars. I'd urge them to check out this Politico.com opinion piece which I just co-authored with David Walker. It makes the case that job creation is not inconsistent with deficit reduction -- in fact, high deficits will be with us as long as high unemployment is.

Walker is the former U.S. Comptroller General and the President of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which focuses largely on long-term fiscal issues. He has been arguing for years that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path; as a result, he has built up a lot of credibility with deficit hawks. Walker and I come from different philosophical viewpoints; there's probably a lot we don't see eye-to-eye on. Yet in the piece, the two of us agree that "deficits will have to go even higher to help address unemployment." Here's what we wrote:

With more than a fifth of the work force expected to be unemployed or underemployed in 2010, there is an economic and a moral imperative to take action. Persistently high unemployment drives poverty up, makes it harder for families to find decent housing, increases family stress and, ultimately, harms children's educational achievement. For young workers entering the workforce, the current jobs crisis reduces the amount they will earn over their lifetime.


In deep recessions, businesses tend to make fewer critical investments in research and development that can improve our economy's productive capacity over the long term. Entrepreneurs usually find credit hard to obtain if they want to start a new business. These factors hurt U.S. global competitiveness and growth potential.

That's why we agree that job creation must be a short-term priority. Job creation plans must be targeted so we can get the greatest return on investment. They must be timely, creating jobs this year and next. And they must be big enough to substantially fill the enormous jobs hole we're in. They must also be temporary -- affecting the deficit only in the next couple of years, without exacerbating our large and growing structural deficits in later years.

 

We also point out that the reason we have these enormous deficits is that we're in a severe recession. This should be common sense. But often the deficit is talked about like it's disconnected from what's going in the economy. With fewer people working and paying taxes, government revenues take a nosedive, and bigger deficits are the result.

I'm not sure how to convince lawmakers that we need to do more to create jobs if they're unwilling to see the reality that's right in front of them -- that is, that the Recovery Act worked. But for reality-based lawmakers with a genuine concern about the budget outlook, they should know that there is a way to come to agreement on the need to create jobs now and at the same time come up with a plan for addressing deficits that will persist even once the economy has recovered.

For more information, please visit EPI.org.
 

 

Unions Push White House to Appoint Becker

FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 4:12 P.M. ET

By MELANIE TROTTMAN And KRIS MAHER Wall Street Journal - Politics

Leaders of some big unions are pushing the White House to appoint former union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board despite the failure of his nomination in the Senate, as they try to salvage what they can of their legislative and regulatory agenda ahead of the 2010 elections.

"I think he should be appointed. I think a majority should rule here, and I hope the president takes it under strong consideration," said Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern in an interview Wednesday.

United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard also wanted a so-called recess appointment—which bypasses the requirement for Senate confirmation—for Mr. Becker, and warned Democrats Thursday that failure to move on labor priorities could cost them in the 2010 elections. "If we don't get meaningful progress, it will be hard to get people out for the election," Mr. Gerard said. "Lots of people who worked real hard in '08 don't have a job right now."

Mr. Becker, who worked for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, won 52 votes in a Senate vote Tuesday, but that was short of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. Two Democrats, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, voted no. The vote further dimmed the chances that the Senate would move on a top labor priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize workers.

The White House hasn't said whether it would try to seat Mr. Becker by appointing him while Congress was in recess. But the administration is trying to reassure labor allies. "We will work with our allies and with Congress to help restore balance to the federal government on behalf of working people," the White House said Wednesday.

In the aftermath of the defeat, union officials said they would press harder on the Labor Department and the NLRB to enforce existing rules protecting workers' rights.

"We will be pushing for stepped-up enforcement at the labor board and the labor department, such as cracking down on wage and hour abuses, health and safety violations, and efforts to thwart union organizing," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for labor federation AFL-CIO, which represents 57 unions. "We hope the president will use the bully pulpit to criticize employers that are violating the basic rights of workers."

Union leaders said they would look for other ways to get some of the results they had hoped for from the Employee Free Choice Act. "We need to find ways in our country for American workers to get a raise," said the SEIU's Mr. Stern. "If the Employee Free Choice Act as it is written is not going to be the vehicle to do that, we are not going to stop looking for ways to make sure people get raises and have choices," he said.

Among the proposals unions have on their agenda: a jobs bill and legislation that would require employers to give workers time off to deal with their own or others' health needs.

Some business groups are concerned about the prospect of more aggressive enforcement actions by the Labor Department. They point to the recent confirmation of Patricia Smith as the department's solicitor, the agency' No. 3 post. Strongly supported by unions, she gained a reputation as a tough labor commissioner of New York state known for vigorous enforcement of rules for minimum wage and overtime pay. In her first year on the job, she collected 37% more in wage underpayments and 20% more in fines than in the prior year.

"The danger there is that the enforcement gets targeted on companies that are being targeted by unions for organizing," said Dan Yager, chief policy officer of the HR Policy Association, a Washington business group.

Unions will also look for more federal spending on infrastructure projects that can benefit the building trades unions, labor experts said.

Write to Melanie Trottman at melanie.trottman@wsj.com and Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

 

The Change We Need

Posted December 3, 2008 at 2:33 pm, in From the News

Robert Borosage

Robert L. Borosage, 

Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Does President-Elect Obama represent the change we need? His mainstream appointments — largely veterans of the Clinton administration — have sparked a clamor from worried supporters. But in one of the critical challenges facing the country — how to get the country out of what will be the worst downturn since the Great Depression — Obama is calling for dramatic and long overdue change. While President Bush continues to oppose any major plan for Main Street, Obama has been calling for a substantial recovery program, focused on public investments rather than tax cuts.

His chief economic advisor, Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, suggests a “speedy, substantial and sustained” fiscal stimulus, at levels of $350 billion a year or more. A key question is whether the stimulus will be strategic — investing in areas vital to our future, rather than in simple one-off expenditures for temporary effect.

On this Obama seems clear. The centerpiece of his plan is a down payment towards moving to energy independence and dealing with global warming. He’ll generate green jobs by investing in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, in modernizing the electric grid, in pushing renewable energy, mass transit, and retooling the auto industry.

He could also sensibly use the crisis to make college more affordable again. The cost of college has doubled under President Bush. Grant programs haven’t kept pace. States have been limiting their support. Students have had to take on more and more debt to pay the bill.

Now in the crisis, all will get much worse. Tuition and costs are increasing, as states cut even more costs. Teachers are getting laid off; construction projects stalled; class sizes will increase. As private lenders abandon the student loan area, loans are still available — but the costs and debt burdens are likely to rise.

For this country to prosper as a high wage society in a global economy, we will need greater education for students, particularly in the skill oriented community colleges that are being hit hardest in the downturn. Obama would be wise to raise Pell grants — the grants that go to neediest students back to the level they once were, when the maximum grant covered about 75% of college costs. That would cost $35 billion a year. The money would be spent immediately — and it would keep kids in college and off the unemployment rolls.

Critics argue that the spending program should be temporary — one-time tax rebates, or one-off investments that involve no long term commitments, and can be ended when the economy starts to grow. If we make a downpayment on strategic investments now, they warn, we’ll have to find a way to pay for them when the economy recovers.

Exactly. The fact is that we’ve been starving vital public investments for decades. Just as conservatives pushed for massive tax cuts as a back door way to force cuts in government spending, Obama should be making vital investments as part of the deficit-funded stimulus as a backdoor way to strengthen the argument for paying for these investments in the long run.

A big time recovery plan for Main Street focused on the investments we need is one key element of the change we need. And one that President Obama surely supports.