Friday, October 1, 2010
Senator Murray: ‘I will defend Social Security’
(Editor’s note: The Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has received a welcome letter from Senator Patty Murray spelling out in detail her commitment “to defend the integrity of Social Security against efforts to reduce its benefits or weaken its protections.” In view of the critical importance of this issue to our members, and to the nation, we are publishing Senator Murray’s letter in full. You will find it linked to the PSARA Home page.)
Legislative prospects hinge on Nov. 2 vote
By Jerry Reilly
If the Eyman/British Petroleum Initiative 1053 is defeated, the legislature will also have the ability to consider, again, closing some of the tax loopholes (in excess of $1 billion) that they were not able to muster the votes to accomplish in the 2010 session. But most important of all, they can expect to see about $1 billion in additional revenue in the next biennium from the passage of Initiative 1098 (taxing high earners). They can also plan to see about $4 billion in additional revenue from Initiative 1098 in the biennium after next that begins in July 2013. Even with some new revenue options available, they will most likely still need to make additional cuts to state services to bring the budget into balance.
The outlook for the 2011 session will be very different if the news story on November 3rd is as follows:
The outlook for the 2011 Legislative Session all depends on the outcome of the November 2nd election—and that outcome depends on us.
Confounding the pollsters and the pundits, the voters in Washington State defeated a set of ballot initiatives that would have reduced state revenues by $1.2 Billion and another initiative that would have made it impossible for the legislature to close tax loopholes and update a tax on hazardous petroleum products. The voters also approved an initiative to give tax relief to small businesses and property owners and to improve the state’s regressive tax system by installing an income tax on high earners.If this is the news story on November 3rd, after the general election, the task for the 2011 session of the Legislature will be challenging, but manageable. The Legislature will need to build a budget for the next biennium with an estimated shortfall in revenues of around $5 Billion. But they will not have to cope with the loss of an extra $1.2 Billion in revenue caused by passing initiatives 1107 (rolling back the soda pop and candy tax); 1100 and/or 1105 (privatizing liquor sales) and 1082 (creating a private insurance scheme for worker’s compensation).
If the Eyman/British Petroleum Initiative 1053 is defeated, the legislature will also have the ability to consider, again, closing some of the tax loopholes (in excess of $1 billion) that they were not able to muster the votes to accomplish in the 2010 session. But most important of all, they can expect to see about $1 billion in additional revenue in the next biennium from the passage of Initiative 1098 (taxing high earners). They can also plan to see about $4 billion in additional revenue from Initiative 1098 in the biennium after next that begins in July 2013. Even with some new revenue options available, they will most likely still need to make additional cuts to state services to bring the budget into balance.
The outlook for the 2011 session will be very different if the news story on November 3rd is as follows:
Confirming predictions that the voters were going to “vote their anger”, Washington voters passed initiatives to roll back taxes, privatize liquor sales, bring private insurers into the worker’s compensation system and assure minority rule on tax matters. They also rejected an initiative that combined small business and property owner tax relief with an income tax on high earners.If this how the election turns out, then the legislature will face a revenue shortfall of over $6 billion, without any real option to raise new revenue or close existing loopholes. They will have no real choice except to make additional cuts of $6 Billion on top of the $5 Billion already made in the current biennium. They will be forced to gut health care and long term care for the poor, disabled and elderly, make additional drastic cuts to higher education, curtail preschool opportunities for children and impose dozens of other harmful reductions. If this turns out to be our future, we should retain Governor Haley Barbour as a budget consultant because we will be on our way to becoming Mississippi.
The outlook for the 2011 Legislative Session all depends on the outcome of the November 2nd election—and that outcome depends on us.
Notice of PSARA elections
PSARA will hold its annual election of officers and Executive Board members at the Membership Meeting and Holiday Party on Thursday, December 16. Members who wish to run should contact Election Committee members Will Parry or Maureen Bo at (206) 448-9646.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. Except for Steve Dzielak, who is moving out of the area, all board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
With no paid staff, PSARA relies entirely on the activism of its officers, its Executive Board, and its rank and file membership to carry out the organization’s work. In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. Except for Steve Dzielak, who is moving out of the area, all board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
With no paid staff, PSARA relies entirely on the activism of its officers, its Executive Board, and its rank and file membership to carry out the organization’s work. In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
Legislative Conference Nov. 19
Please plan to attend the PSARA annual Legislative Conference from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Friday, November 19, at the Greenwood Senior Center (site of our fabulous birthday party for Social Security). At this always interesting and informative conference, we will have an analysis of the results of the November 2 election and what they mean for the 2011 session of the State Legislature.
The PSARA Legislative Committee and Executive Board will present recommendations for PSARA priority legislative issues. We’ll discuss these issues, adopt a legislative agenda, and plan our strategy to advocate for our priorities.
We face a very difficult budget situation in our state, with revenues falling far behind what is needed. Once we know the fate of the November ballot initiatives, we’ll have a realistic estimate of the deficit we face and the options we have as we work to meet the growing needs of the people of our state.
Please join us as we chart our course for the coming critical months of advocacy.
The PSARA Legislative Committee and Executive Board will present recommendations for PSARA priority legislative issues. We’ll discuss these issues, adopt a legislative agenda, and plan our strategy to advocate for our priorities.
We face a very difficult budget situation in our state, with revenues falling far behind what is needed. Once we know the fate of the November ballot initiatives, we’ll have a realistic estimate of the deficit we face and the options we have as we work to meet the growing needs of the people of our state.
Please join us as we chart our course for the coming critical months of advocacy.
Forward? Or Backward? The 2010 Elections
By Robby Stern
The 2008 election created high expectations. The promise of a new forward thinking President and an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Congress meant we could not only reverse the terrible policies of the abysmal Bush era but we could finally move a progressive agenda. At the state level, many believed the overwhelming Democratic majorities combined with a Democratic governor meant we could address the terrible economic recession in a humane manner that created the least suffering possible.
Disappointment shadows us as we face the 2010 election. There is a significant distance between what we had hoped for and what has occurred. At the state level, the legislature did raise some revenue, but not enough and they lacked the courage to attack the tax breaks that have been handed out like Halloween candy. The continuing tidal wave of revenue shortfalls promises even more devastating cuts.
At the federal level, the stimulus package, while helpful, was not nearly big enough. The health care reform legislation, while historic, could have been so much better and the same can be said about Wall Street Reform legislation.
So many things are still on the table including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, the Fair Pay Act, Global Warming legislation and legislation that overturns the terrible Supreme Court decision that handed our electoral process over to the wealthy corporations and Wall Street. We feel these disappointments keenly. But we cannot give in to cynicism and despair. WE MUST BE ACTIVE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION BECAUSE IF WE AREN’T, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR STATE GO IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION.
As I am writing this column, the House Republican Caucus just announced their Pledge for our country. They will repeal the health care reform act, retain the tax cuts for the wealthy, scapegoat immigrants, move to privatize Social Security, and cut spending for much needed social programs. They are clear. They are telling us what they will do. They will continue to blame the unemployed for their fate and do as much as they can to weaken organized labor. We can assume, from the filibusters of the Senate Republicans, that they are in lock step with their House Republican colleagues. WE MUST DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
At the state level, both the election of candidates and the initiatives are critical. We are faced with q fundamental question: Who do we want to write the biannual budget for the next two years? It is clear that had the Republicans been in control of the state legislature in 2009-2010, no revenue would have been raised.
On the initiative and referendum front, the choices could not be clearer. I-1107, robs the state of significant revenue raised in the 2010 session – more than $100 million per year by repealing the soda and candy tax. I–1100 and I–1105, privatizing liquor sales, would create an explosion of liquor vendors in our state. In addition, I-1100 would cost state and local governments $275 million over five years and I–1105 would cost more than $700 million over five years. These two initiatives would also eliminate approximately 800 good family wage jobs for workers represented by UFCW 21. I–1053 is Tim Eyeman’s initiative and would absolutely tie the hands of legislators who might want to close tax loopholes or raise additional revenue. I–1082 will privatize our Workers Compensation system and turn it over to the likes of AIG and Liberty Mutual. Corporate interests are spending HUGE dollars to pass these five initiatives and boost their profits at the expense of every day working people. They are the “Dirty Five” and PSARA recommends a “No” vote on each one of them.
Much has been written about I–1098, the high income tax initiative. This could be the biggest assistance in the history of our state to revenue for education and health care since our regressive tax system was developed. The initiative is fair. It supports those things we most value. I–1098 presents us an historic opportunity. Finally, R–52 addresses two desperate needs; 1. It creates between 30,000 & 40,000 jobs and 2. It will allow the long overdue physical upgrading of our educational infrastructure.
Will we continue create the groundwork, giving us the opportunity to move forward? Or will the forces and interests who will take us backward achieve a victory in this election? The answer is up to us!
The 2008 election created high expectations. The promise of a new forward thinking President and an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Congress meant we could not only reverse the terrible policies of the abysmal Bush era but we could finally move a progressive agenda. At the state level, many believed the overwhelming Democratic majorities combined with a Democratic governor meant we could address the terrible economic recession in a humane manner that created the least suffering possible.
Disappointment shadows us as we face the 2010 election. There is a significant distance between what we had hoped for and what has occurred. At the state level, the legislature did raise some revenue, but not enough and they lacked the courage to attack the tax breaks that have been handed out like Halloween candy. The continuing tidal wave of revenue shortfalls promises even more devastating cuts.
At the federal level, the stimulus package, while helpful, was not nearly big enough. The health care reform legislation, while historic, could have been so much better and the same can be said about Wall Street Reform legislation.
So many things are still on the table including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, the Fair Pay Act, Global Warming legislation and legislation that overturns the terrible Supreme Court decision that handed our electoral process over to the wealthy corporations and Wall Street. We feel these disappointments keenly. But we cannot give in to cynicism and despair. WE MUST BE ACTIVE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION BECAUSE IF WE AREN’T, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR STATE GO IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION.
As I am writing this column, the House Republican Caucus just announced their Pledge for our country. They will repeal the health care reform act, retain the tax cuts for the wealthy, scapegoat immigrants, move to privatize Social Security, and cut spending for much needed social programs. They are clear. They are telling us what they will do. They will continue to blame the unemployed for their fate and do as much as they can to weaken organized labor. We can assume, from the filibusters of the Senate Republicans, that they are in lock step with their House Republican colleagues. WE MUST DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
At the state level, both the election of candidates and the initiatives are critical. We are faced with q fundamental question: Who do we want to write the biannual budget for the next two years? It is clear that had the Republicans been in control of the state legislature in 2009-2010, no revenue would have been raised.
On the initiative and referendum front, the choices could not be clearer. I-1107, robs the state of significant revenue raised in the 2010 session – more than $100 million per year by repealing the soda and candy tax. I–1100 and I–1105, privatizing liquor sales, would create an explosion of liquor vendors in our state. In addition, I-1100 would cost state and local governments $275 million over five years and I–1105 would cost more than $700 million over five years. These two initiatives would also eliminate approximately 800 good family wage jobs for workers represented by UFCW 21. I–1053 is Tim Eyeman’s initiative and would absolutely tie the hands of legislators who might want to close tax loopholes or raise additional revenue. I–1082 will privatize our Workers Compensation system and turn it over to the likes of AIG and Liberty Mutual. Corporate interests are spending HUGE dollars to pass these five initiatives and boost their profits at the expense of every day working people. They are the “Dirty Five” and PSARA recommends a “No” vote on each one of them.
Much has been written about I–1098, the high income tax initiative. This could be the biggest assistance in the history of our state to revenue for education and health care since our regressive tax system was developed. The initiative is fair. It supports those things we most value. I–1098 presents us an historic opportunity. Finally, R–52 addresses two desperate needs; 1. It creates between 30,000 & 40,000 jobs and 2. It will allow the long overdue physical upgrading of our educational infrastructure.
Will we continue create the groundwork, giving us the opportunity to move forward? Or will the forces and interests who will take us backward achieve a victory in this election? The answer is up to us!
Working to age 70 – the worst idea
By Rap Lewis
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Wal-Mart target of discrimination suit
By Rap Lewis
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future. If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future. If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
129 sponsors for public option bill
By David Loud
What a year it’s been working on healthcare reform - a milestone year in an ongoing struggle for healthcare justice. It’s worth noting that President Theodore Roosevelt first called for national health care in 1912, and that successive Presidents tried and failed to move this agenda. When President Obama signed the Affordable Health Care Act into law in March, it was the biggest step forward in a century of trying. This law is flawed and incomplete, but it represents a historic victory. As Congressman Jim McDermott has said recently, “That was our D-Day, and now we’re on the beaches.” The opponents of reform would like to push us back into the water in November, and the advocates of reform know that to survive we must fight to defend and improve on what’s been achieved.
A bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option was filed in the House in July. HR 5808 has 129 cosponsors, including Congressman McDermott. Single-payer (a publicly-funded national plan for all) remains the best policy idea, and many are working to promote it at both the state and national levels.
The ongoing rise in healthcare costs will force people to revisit the question of whether we will be able to afford healthcare for all as long as long as private insurance and profiteering have so much power in the system.
I hope all of us will find some way to help keep our country from moving further to the right in the November elections. It would be tragic if understandable disappointments in getting “change we can believe in” since 2008 lead people to allow Republicans to gain the power to push us backwards. Probably more important than anything else will be getting out the vote – persuading people that it does really matter this year, as much as it did in 2008.
(David Loud is a member of PSARA.)
What a year it’s been working on healthcare reform - a milestone year in an ongoing struggle for healthcare justice. It’s worth noting that President Theodore Roosevelt first called for national health care in 1912, and that successive Presidents tried and failed to move this agenda. When President Obama signed the Affordable Health Care Act into law in March, it was the biggest step forward in a century of trying. This law is flawed and incomplete, but it represents a historic victory. As Congressman Jim McDermott has said recently, “That was our D-Day, and now we’re on the beaches.” The opponents of reform would like to push us back into the water in November, and the advocates of reform know that to survive we must fight to defend and improve on what’s been achieved.
A bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option was filed in the House in July. HR 5808 has 129 cosponsors, including Congressman McDermott. Single-payer (a publicly-funded national plan for all) remains the best policy idea, and many are working to promote it at both the state and national levels.
The ongoing rise in healthcare costs will force people to revisit the question of whether we will be able to afford healthcare for all as long as long as private insurance and profiteering have so much power in the system.
I hope all of us will find some way to help keep our country from moving further to the right in the November elections. It would be tragic if understandable disappointments in getting “change we can believe in” since 2008 lead people to allow Republicans to gain the power to push us backwards. Probably more important than anything else will be getting out the vote – persuading people that it does really matter this year, as much as it did in 2008.
(David Loud is a member of PSARA.)
Standing Up for a future we can all depend on
Grocery Store Workers – Standing Up for a future we can all depend on
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director UFCW 21
Our son Isaiah (7) and daughter Naomi (5) will inherit the world we make for them. My wife Aiko and I take that responsibility seriously. Like all parents, we want our kids’ lives to be better than our own.
And fighting for a better future – a future we can all depend on – is just what 25,000 grocery store workers across Puget Sound are doing in the current contract negotiations. These workers – from UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38 – work in hundreds of stores across the region.
The future we seek is one where workers have: improved wages; quality and affordable health care; a secure pension; as well as scheduling, paid sick days and other policies that are critical to our quality of life.
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has been there with the workers every step of the way. PSARA President Robby Stern spoke to over 400 hundred store leaders in February on the eve of our negotiations. Many PSARA members supported our Standing Up for Working Moms events in May and other events since.
Recently, workers and community allies delivered the Grocery Store Bill of Rights to management in all 218 stores. Check out the Bill of Rights at:
http://www.ufcw21.org/grocery2010/bill-of-rights
Whether workers attain a fair contract depends primarily on the level of their unity and action combined with the level of public support. That combination has not been higher anywhere in the nation than it is here in Puget Sound.
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director UFCW 21
Our son Isaiah (7) and daughter Naomi (5) will inherit the world we make for them. My wife Aiko and I take that responsibility seriously. Like all parents, we want our kids’ lives to be better than our own.
And fighting for a better future – a future we can all depend on – is just what 25,000 grocery store workers across Puget Sound are doing in the current contract negotiations. These workers – from UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38 – work in hundreds of stores across the region.
The future we seek is one where workers have: improved wages; quality and affordable health care; a secure pension; as well as scheduling, paid sick days and other policies that are critical to our quality of life.
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has been there with the workers every step of the way. PSARA President Robby Stern spoke to over 400 hundred store leaders in February on the eve of our negotiations. Many PSARA members supported our Standing Up for Working Moms events in May and other events since.
Recently, workers and community allies delivered the Grocery Store Bill of Rights to management in all 218 stores. Check out the Bill of Rights at:
http://www.ufcw21.org/grocery2010/bill-of-rights
Whether workers attain a fair contract depends primarily on the level of their unity and action combined with the level of public support. That combination has not been higher anywhere in the nation than it is here in Puget Sound.
Sick Days for All Workers
New coalition aims for a healthier Seattle through paid sick days for all workers
By Alex Stone
It should be as fundamental a standard as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. Yet one million Washington workers can’t take a single paid day off from work when they – or their children or their elderly parents – get sick.
Among them is Amber, a 22 year old Seattle-area mother with a 3 year old son. Amber’s current job as a kitchen staffer doesn’t offer her paid time off to care for her son when he gets sick. “When my son was sick, I had to call in sick because he couldn’t go to daycare,” Amber says. “I had to take two days off without pay and I regretted it because I have bills to pay and now I am behind”.
Amber’s story is commonplace in the food service industry, where just 16% of employers offer full-time workers paid sick days, and only 2% offer them to part-time employees. It's no wonder nearly half of "stomach flu" related outbreaks are linked to ill food service workers.
According to the most recent national data, 38% of all workers and two-thirds of the lowest-paid 25% have no paid sick leave. And some grocery and hospital workers – who in theory get sick leave – have to be out two or three days without pay before they can take it.
In 2006, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to adopt minimum paid sick days standards. The law allows all workers in the city to accrue paid sick days – up to 5 days in businesses with fewer than 10 employees and 9 days in larger companies. Since then, both Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, WI have adopted, but not yet fully implemented, similar measures. New York City and Philadelphia have active campaigns, and a paid sick days bill is before Congress.
The Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce is laying the groundwork for paid sick days legislation here by organizing a broad coalition of businesses, community organizations and individuals who support paid sick days for Seattle workers.
A citywide paid sick days standard will benefit public health, allowing workers like Amber to stay home when she or her son get sick. It will promote family economic security by ensuring workers and their families can care for basic health care needs without jeopardizing a day’s wages. It will create healthier workplaces, hospitals, and childcare facilities by limiting the spread of disease. It will lower health care costs by enabling workers to seek preventive care for themselves and their loved ones. Business owners who provide paid sick leave have found that morale, productivity, and customer satisfaction all go up.
There are millions of stories just like Amber’s. Do you have one? Please share it on the Seattle Healthy Workforce website, Help Seattle join other cities in caring for working families. Visit http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/ to learn more.
(Alex Stone is Communication Manager for the Economic Opportunity Institute.)
By Alex Stone
It should be as fundamental a standard as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. Yet one million Washington workers can’t take a single paid day off from work when they – or their children or their elderly parents – get sick.
Among them is Amber, a 22 year old Seattle-area mother with a 3 year old son. Amber’s current job as a kitchen staffer doesn’t offer her paid time off to care for her son when he gets sick. “When my son was sick, I had to call in sick because he couldn’t go to daycare,” Amber says. “I had to take two days off without pay and I regretted it because I have bills to pay and now I am behind”.
Amber’s story is commonplace in the food service industry, where just 16% of employers offer full-time workers paid sick days, and only 2% offer them to part-time employees. It's no wonder nearly half of "stomach flu" related outbreaks are linked to ill food service workers.
According to the most recent national data, 38% of all workers and two-thirds of the lowest-paid 25% have no paid sick leave. And some grocery and hospital workers – who in theory get sick leave – have to be out two or three days without pay before they can take it.
In 2006, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to adopt minimum paid sick days standards. The law allows all workers in the city to accrue paid sick days – up to 5 days in businesses with fewer than 10 employees and 9 days in larger companies. Since then, both Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, WI have adopted, but not yet fully implemented, similar measures. New York City and Philadelphia have active campaigns, and a paid sick days bill is before Congress.
The Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce is laying the groundwork for paid sick days legislation here by organizing a broad coalition of businesses, community organizations and individuals who support paid sick days for Seattle workers.
A citywide paid sick days standard will benefit public health, allowing workers like Amber to stay home when she or her son get sick. It will promote family economic security by ensuring workers and their families can care for basic health care needs without jeopardizing a day’s wages. It will create healthier workplaces, hospitals, and childcare facilities by limiting the spread of disease. It will lower health care costs by enabling workers to seek preventive care for themselves and their loved ones. Business owners who provide paid sick leave have found that morale, productivity, and customer satisfaction all go up.
There are millions of stories just like Amber’s. Do you have one? Please share it on the Seattle Healthy Workforce website, Help Seattle join other cities in caring for working families. Visit http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/ to learn more.
(Alex Stone is Communication Manager for the Economic Opportunity Institute.)
Low-income housing is scarce and costly
Housing for low-income renters is becoming increasingly scarce, and what rental housing exists is becoming increasingly costly, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports.
In 2009, 5.6 million households with incomes below the poverty level paid at least half their income for rent and basic utilities, newly-released Census data show. That’s 1.7 million more households than paid that share of their income in 2003.
Job losses account in part for the 1.7 million increase. A major factor is that while home prices have fallen by nearly 30% since the market peaked in 2006, rents have actually risen by an average of 11% over the same period. Federal rental assistance programs have helped, but funding for them has fallen far behind the growing need.
One indication of the deepening crisis is that in 2009 about 325,000 children lived at least part of a year in a homeless shelter, up 12% since 2007.
“Two or three times as many children were homeless if you count those living temporarily in hotels or motels, doubled-up with other families, or on the street…separate data from the (U.S.) Department of Education suggest,” the CBPP reports.
In 2009, 5.6 million households with incomes below the poverty level paid at least half their income for rent and basic utilities, newly-released Census data show. That’s 1.7 million more households than paid that share of their income in 2003.
Job losses account in part for the 1.7 million increase. A major factor is that while home prices have fallen by nearly 30% since the market peaked in 2006, rents have actually risen by an average of 11% over the same period. Federal rental assistance programs have helped, but funding for them has fallen far behind the growing need.
One indication of the deepening crisis is that in 2009 about 325,000 children lived at least part of a year in a homeless shelter, up 12% since 2007.
“Two or three times as many children were homeless if you count those living temporarily in hotels or motels, doubled-up with other families, or on the street…separate data from the (U.S.) Department of Education suggest,” the CBPP reports.
Where workers run the show
By Will Parry
The United Steelworkers, the nation’s largest industrial union, has announced a potentially historic collaboration with the world’s largest worker-owned cooperative, Mondragon International, based in the Basque region of Spain.
The objective of the union is to bypass the greed of financial speculators and private capital and take the burning issue of job creation into its own hands.
The union has the world’s most experienced cooperative enterprise as its partner. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) has championed economic democracy and social entrepeneurship for more than 50 years.
Begun in 1956 in a small shop making kerosene stoves, MCC has been built into a network of some 260 cooperatives employing 100,000 worker-owners in 40 countries. Its products include high-tech machine tools, motor buses, household appliances, and a chain of supermarkets. Its annual sales exceed 15 billion Euros.
The Steelworkers are proceeding cautiously.
“We’ve made a commitment here,” said Rob Witherell of the union’s Organizing Department. “But for that reason, we want to make sure we get it right, even if it means starting slowly and on a modest scale.”
The union is seeking viable small businesses in appropriate sectors whose owners are interested in cashing out. At the same time, it is lining up financial institutions – credit unions and cooperative banks – with a focus on productive investment.
“It can get complicated,” Witherell said. “Not only do you have to fund the buyout, but you also have to figure out how to lend the workers the money to buy in, so they can repay it at a reasonable rate over a period of time and still make a decent living.”
Once the start-up problems are resolved and workers begin running an enterprise they own, the payoff is dramatic. The worker-owners cannot be fired. In regular assemblies, they hire and fire their managers, as well as set the general policies that govern the firm’s direction.
A worker-owner can “cash out” upon retirement, but his or her share cannot be sold. It is available only for purchase by a new worker-owner at the enterprise.
The workers also determine the income spread between the lowest-paid worker and the highest-paid manager. In the U.S. today, that ratio is 400 or more to one. In Mondragon cooperatives, the ratio currently averages about 4.5 to one.
The core Mondragon model starts with a school, a credit union, and a shop, all owned by the workers. These three basic components enable the cooperative to rely on its own resources for financing and training.
Mondragon principles are already being applied in Cleveland, a city hard hit by the current economic crisis. The Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, a worker-owned, industrial-size, thoroughly “green” operation, is up and running in the depressed Glenville neighborhood, where the median income is about $18,000.
The laundry is the first of ten major cooperative enterprises in the works in Cleveland. A second green, employee-owned enterprise – Ohio Cooperative Solar – opened last fall. It is undertaking large-scale installations of solar panels on the roofs of Cleveland’s largest non-profit health, education and municipal buildings. Its role in the city’s weatherization program ensures its worker-members year-round employment.
As the Steelworkers launch cooperative enterprises, they will insist that the Mondragon formula be modified in one respect: The worker-owners will be organized into the union, and the union will negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the management team.
“What we are announcing,” said Josu Ugarte, president of Mondragon International, “represents a historic first – combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complementary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”
Somebody has to check banker-capitalist greed. Somebody has to create living-wage union jobs. Somebody has to plant the flag of worker-controlled industry in U.S. soil.
Stay tuned. The Steelworkers are serious.
The United Steelworkers, the nation’s largest industrial union, has announced a potentially historic collaboration with the world’s largest worker-owned cooperative, Mondragon International, based in the Basque region of Spain.
The objective of the union is to bypass the greed of financial speculators and private capital and take the burning issue of job creation into its own hands.
The union has the world’s most experienced cooperative enterprise as its partner. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) has championed economic democracy and social entrepeneurship for more than 50 years.
Begun in 1956 in a small shop making kerosene stoves, MCC has been built into a network of some 260 cooperatives employing 100,000 worker-owners in 40 countries. Its products include high-tech machine tools, motor buses, household appliances, and a chain of supermarkets. Its annual sales exceed 15 billion Euros.
The Steelworkers are proceeding cautiously.
“We’ve made a commitment here,” said Rob Witherell of the union’s Organizing Department. “But for that reason, we want to make sure we get it right, even if it means starting slowly and on a modest scale.”
The union is seeking viable small businesses in appropriate sectors whose owners are interested in cashing out. At the same time, it is lining up financial institutions – credit unions and cooperative banks – with a focus on productive investment.
“It can get complicated,” Witherell said. “Not only do you have to fund the buyout, but you also have to figure out how to lend the workers the money to buy in, so they can repay it at a reasonable rate over a period of time and still make a decent living.”
Once the start-up problems are resolved and workers begin running an enterprise they own, the payoff is dramatic. The worker-owners cannot be fired. In regular assemblies, they hire and fire their managers, as well as set the general policies that govern the firm’s direction.
A worker-owner can “cash out” upon retirement, but his or her share cannot be sold. It is available only for purchase by a new worker-owner at the enterprise.
The workers also determine the income spread between the lowest-paid worker and the highest-paid manager. In the U.S. today, that ratio is 400 or more to one. In Mondragon cooperatives, the ratio currently averages about 4.5 to one.
The core Mondragon model starts with a school, a credit union, and a shop, all owned by the workers. These three basic components enable the cooperative to rely on its own resources for financing and training.
Mondragon principles are already being applied in Cleveland, a city hard hit by the current economic crisis. The Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, a worker-owned, industrial-size, thoroughly “green” operation, is up and running in the depressed Glenville neighborhood, where the median income is about $18,000.
The laundry is the first of ten major cooperative enterprises in the works in Cleveland. A second green, employee-owned enterprise – Ohio Cooperative Solar – opened last fall. It is undertaking large-scale installations of solar panels on the roofs of Cleveland’s largest non-profit health, education and municipal buildings. Its role in the city’s weatherization program ensures its worker-members year-round employment.
As the Steelworkers launch cooperative enterprises, they will insist that the Mondragon formula be modified in one respect: The worker-owners will be organized into the union, and the union will negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the management team.
“What we are announcing,” said Josu Ugarte, president of Mondragon International, “represents a historic first – combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complementary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”
Somebody has to check banker-capitalist greed. Somebody has to create living-wage union jobs. Somebody has to plant the flag of worker-controlled industry in U.S. soil.
Stay tuned. The Steelworkers are serious.
Fighting to regulate the big boys
By Steve Dzielak
Most U.S. Senators win arguments or get legislation passed relying on horse-trading, muscle and bluster. Not Maria Cantwell. The junior senator from Washington State does her homework, then fights for what she believes is right.
Ask smart people in DC who is the toughest, best-informed Congressional combatant for effective financial regulation. Few will say House and Senate financial committee chairs Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. The answer you’re more likely to get is the junior senator from the Evergreen State.
Dismayed by what she’s seen to date, Cantwell continues to push the Obama administration for systemic financial reforms. "If there are people at the Treasury and the White House who think that the way to get the economy going again is not to close these loopholes, that’s disgusting," she said.
During last year’s committee work on healthcare, Cantwell salvaged some of the cost-containment goals of the doomed public option. Her amendment, modeled on a Washington State program, allowed all states to negotiate the terms of insurance coverage for those eligible for subsidies, and for others buying in on their own. But the most lasting impact of her diligent approach to public policy is likely to come from her fight for the regulation of derivatives— those abstract securities based mathematically on real economic transactions.
"There's a few people in the administration,” Cantwell said at a hearing in May, “who are slow-walking, thinking we're all going to forget about this regulatory reform that is needed, I can assure you that we're not going to forget."
Cantwell, 51, grew up in Indiana. The daughter of a Congressional staffer, she moved to Seattle and at 28 won a seat in the state legislature. In 1992, she became the first Democrat in 40 years to win in the First Congressional District.
She lost her seat in the 1994 Republican landslide. Offered the top marketing job in RealNetworks, she was quickly promoted to executive vice president.
She resigned in 2000 to make her Senate run, beating incumbent Slade Gorton by 2,229 votes. Serving on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at a time of soaring electricity rates, she mastered the details of electric-power regulation, which led her directly to derivatives abuses.
In 2007 and 2008, when oil prices were spiking, Cantwell led an effort to have regulatory agencies investigate market-rigging. Many industry pros scoffed at the idea, but Cantwell continued to raise the issue, and in 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) concluded that she was right.
A few months into the Obama presidency, Cantwell pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to empower the CFTC to monitor trades to curb their volatility. Geithner balked, but Cantwell pressured the White House. One observer said she “played hardball like few liberals do anymore.”
In May, Geithner made explicit commitments to give new powers to the CFTC, but as Cantwell later said, “It’s not unheard of in D.C. to feign a commitment and then not fight hard to have the legislation pass.” Sure enough, in June, the Treasury Department released a white paper weaker than Geithner’s earlier commitments, and the financial reform legislation Geithner sent to Congress in August was weaker yet.
The loopholes were widened further by the House Financial Services Committee and were not resisted by the administration “The Treasury Department should be ashamed of themselves,” Cantwell said.
“Treasury has gone back on their original commitment,” Cantwell says. “The battle lines have been drawn.”
Most U.S. Senators win arguments or get legislation passed relying on horse-trading, muscle and bluster. Not Maria Cantwell. The junior senator from Washington State does her homework, then fights for what she believes is right.
Ask smart people in DC who is the toughest, best-informed Congressional combatant for effective financial regulation. Few will say House and Senate financial committee chairs Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. The answer you’re more likely to get is the junior senator from the Evergreen State.
Dismayed by what she’s seen to date, Cantwell continues to push the Obama administration for systemic financial reforms. "If there are people at the Treasury and the White House who think that the way to get the economy going again is not to close these loopholes, that’s disgusting," she said.
During last year’s committee work on healthcare, Cantwell salvaged some of the cost-containment goals of the doomed public option. Her amendment, modeled on a Washington State program, allowed all states to negotiate the terms of insurance coverage for those eligible for subsidies, and for others buying in on their own. But the most lasting impact of her diligent approach to public policy is likely to come from her fight for the regulation of derivatives— those abstract securities based mathematically on real economic transactions.
"There's a few people in the administration,” Cantwell said at a hearing in May, “who are slow-walking, thinking we're all going to forget about this regulatory reform that is needed, I can assure you that we're not going to forget."
Cantwell, 51, grew up in Indiana. The daughter of a Congressional staffer, she moved to Seattle and at 28 won a seat in the state legislature. In 1992, she became the first Democrat in 40 years to win in the First Congressional District.
She lost her seat in the 1994 Republican landslide. Offered the top marketing job in RealNetworks, she was quickly promoted to executive vice president.
She resigned in 2000 to make her Senate run, beating incumbent Slade Gorton by 2,229 votes. Serving on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at a time of soaring electricity rates, she mastered the details of electric-power regulation, which led her directly to derivatives abuses.
In 2007 and 2008, when oil prices were spiking, Cantwell led an effort to have regulatory agencies investigate market-rigging. Many industry pros scoffed at the idea, but Cantwell continued to raise the issue, and in 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) concluded that she was right.
A few months into the Obama presidency, Cantwell pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to empower the CFTC to monitor trades to curb their volatility. Geithner balked, but Cantwell pressured the White House. One observer said she “played hardball like few liberals do anymore.”
In May, Geithner made explicit commitments to give new powers to the CFTC, but as Cantwell later said, “It’s not unheard of in D.C. to feign a commitment and then not fight hard to have the legislation pass.” Sure enough, in June, the Treasury Department released a white paper weaker than Geithner’s earlier commitments, and the financial reform legislation Geithner sent to Congress in August was weaker yet.
The loopholes were widened further by the House Financial Services Committee and were not resisted by the administration “The Treasury Department should be ashamed of themselves,” Cantwell said.
“Treasury has gone back on their original commitment,” Cantwell says. “The battle lines have been drawn.”
Two added to PSARA Executive Board
The PSARA Executive Board approved the appointment of two new members to the Board at the September meeting. These appointees will stand for election for a two year term at the December membership meeting,
Vivian Lee is a retired Senior Manager for women's health programs in federal Region X of the US Public Health Service. She now volunteers at the UW promoting diversity and scholarship fundraising. She is active in the Mary Mahoney Professional Nurses Organization for health screening in underserved populations. She is active in social justice organizations and in organizations that address issues of disparity.
Mary Anderson is currently working as a Daily Money Manager and Advocate for older adults and disabled persons. She worked as a litigation paralegal for 12 years. She currently represents PSARA on the Advisory Council to Seattle/King County Aging and Disability Services.
Steve Dzielak resigned from the Board as he is moving to the east coast to be of assistance to a friend. PSARA is grateful to Steve for his years of dedicated service.
Vivian Lee is a retired Senior Manager for women's health programs in federal Region X of the US Public Health Service. She now volunteers at the UW promoting diversity and scholarship fundraising. She is active in the Mary Mahoney Professional Nurses Organization for health screening in underserved populations. She is active in social justice organizations and in organizations that address issues of disparity.
Mary Anderson is currently working as a Daily Money Manager and Advocate for older adults and disabled persons. She worked as a litigation paralegal for 12 years. She currently represents PSARA on the Advisory Council to Seattle/King County Aging and Disability Services.
Steve Dzielak resigned from the Board as he is moving to the east coast to be of assistance to a friend. PSARA is grateful to Steve for his years of dedicated service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)