Fax Machine ShutDown on Capitol Hill. Starting Today.
May 22, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Police eject protesters from Senate health hearing
May 13, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
Police eject protesters from Senate health hearing
UNIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT?
March 19, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (1)
Labor's Voice for Change (18) March 17, 2009
WHY HAS LABOR BEEN SILENT TO SUMMERS’ CHARGE
THAT UNIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT?
BY HARRY KELBER
On March 11, I spotted a full-page ad in The New York Times that
featured a statement by Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief
economic adviser, which said: “Another cause of long-term
unemployment is unionization.” Moreover, the ad contained an
explicit attack on the Employee Free Choice Act, which had been
introduced in the House and Senate the previous day.
Since I thought that many labor leaders had not seen the Times ad, I
described it in my weekly column the next day, including Summers'
exact words and the attack on EFPC. I made sure the information
reached most influential labor leaders. I was convinced that the
AFL-CIO and CTW would respond to a damaging attack by a top-tier
economist,who linked unemployment and unions. At the very least, they
would ask Summers to explain his statement. To my surprise and
puzzlement, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney did not respond to the
Summers’ charge, Nor did any of the 43 members of the Executive
Council. Nor any of the seven leaders of Change to Win. Nor the
editors of Labor Notes. Nor the International Labor Communications
Association (ILCA). In fact, the Summers’ remarks were dismissed as
though they had never been uttered.
Thus, the several hundred thousand readers of The New York Times were
led to believe, by extension, that unions cause layoffs, because no
labor leader has come forward to challenge Summers. Having Summers’
name appear in the same ad that contains an attack on EFCA should be a
source of concern, but apparently, it is not.
AFL-CIO’s Policy of Silence to Criticism Is Self-Defeating
AFL-CIO’s top leaders have a long-established policy of not
responding to criticism. They can ignore unfavorable comments from
union members because it won’t affect their certainty of being
re-elected. But when they remain silent about the lies and half-truths
directed against them, the public becomes convinced that all the
terrible things that are said about unions and their leaders must be
true.
We need leaders who can not only refute the arguments of anti-union
propagandists, but can make a strong, convincing case that unions play
a constructive role in our economy and our society.
There are some union members who say that we should avoid criticism,
no matter how justified, because “washing our dirty linen in public"
helps our enemies. Well, we’re never going to have a clean union
unless it’s periodically washed by the members. It makes no sense to
keep members in the dark and deny them an input role for fear that the
employer might find a few facts about the union (which he probably
already knows),
The best course for union leaders is to be straight with their
members and win their confidence by doing so. In the last analysis, no
struggle can be won or be secured without the participation of the
rank-and-file.
What the AFL-CIO Needs Are New Leaders
With Fresh Ideas and an Inspiring Vision!
Article 19 of “Labor’s Voice for Change” will be posted on
Thursday, March 19.
National Day of Action for HR 676
March 6, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
National Day of Action for HR 676
Dear Single-Payer Activists and Supporters -
Thank you to everyone who helped complete the recent online survey gathering input on the upcoming nationwide day of action! We had over 100 respondents and received overwhelming support for a nationwide day of action for HR 676. We took your input and brought it to the Events Committee of the National Single Payer Alliance and have agreed that the day of action should be slated around Saturday, May 30th. The Alliance agreed that all actions should be concentrated between Wednesday, May 27th (when Members of Congress will be in their home districts) and Wednesday, June 3rd (AHIP's National Conference in San Diego), with as many as possible on Saturday, May 30th.
The Goal
The goal is to see as many actions around the country as possible on (and around) May 30th. Building on the success of last year's coordinated day of action on June 19th targeting insurance companies, we expect to easily double the number of events in 2009. This year we have more activists around the country, and we have support from the National Single Payer Alliance. But we can't pull this off without everyone's commitment to making May 30th a day to remember for our US Congress Members, our communities, and the HR 676 movement. Healthcare-NOW! represents the strongest single-payer activists in the country. With the support of the National Single Payer Alliance, we will show during this week the breadth and depth of the support for HR 676. This action will help us to convince our Representatives and Senators to support HR 676, and get active behind meaningful health care reform.
The Action
We urge your local coalition to determine the best action or combination of actions to take at this time. We want you to think strategically -- using your action to put pressure on targeted members of the House, and Senators who might support single-payer. Ideas include:
1. Town Halls - If you want to get your Member of Congress in the room to show wide support for HR 676 and push cosponsorship, then a town hall meeting may be the most strategic strategy. You can invite speakers and share health care horror stories from the constituents. This is the recommended action from Conyers' Staff.
2. Rallies - Many coalitions are supporting resolutions going through state legislatures. A rally in the state capital may be a strategic action to support this effort. Also, rallies in specific congressional districts along with town hall meetings may be an effective method of getting more people out in the street for HR 676.
3. Demonstrations - Some coalitions want to take it straight to the source and demonstrate in front of health insurance companies. We support this, too. Some coalitions feel this is most strategic because of high turn out and press coverage.
4. Other - Your coalition may think of other unique actions that you want to take (i.e. a vigil or die-in). Again, we encourage you to make it strategic. How can you best further the message where you are with your local organizers and supporters.
The Message
The messaging for this action has got to be in support of HR 676: The US National Health Care Act or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. We are anticipating a very intense legislative battle over health care. We want the message to be loud and clear that we demand a publicly funded, privately delivered health care system NOW. Stay tuned for streamlined messaging from the Events Committee of the National Single Payer Alliance. We will also help with press release and media as events get closer.
Next Steps
We've got approximately 3 months to plan, build support, and organize. Bring this to your local coalition's next meeting and gather input on how your action should look. As soon as possible, report back to Healthcare-NOW! with the logistics so we can begin posting and promoting the event. We request at least one point person for each action so if others want to get involved, they know where to go. Start doing outreach to other community organizations do get them to endorse the action and promote the action within their network. We must also use this opportunity to reach new people and show the diversity and support of our local organizing. Think churches, unions, community organizations, and more. Think about tabling at events, door-to-door outreach, and house parties where "Sick Around America" is shown. These tools all help bring new people to our movement, new people who can participate in the events planned for May 27-June 3. Send logistic details and point person contact to info@healthcare-now.org
Questions
For questions, comments, and input, please contact Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW! at 1-800-453-1305 or healthcarenow08@gmail.com
Thank you for your support!
National Staff, Healthcare-NOW!
Employee Free Choice Act: Fight of a Lifetime?
February 28, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (2)
Nobody wants to say it on the record, but the buzz is we won’t get the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form.
Labor Needs a Radical Vision by: David Bacon,
February 20, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
Labor Needs a Radical Vision
Thursday 19 February 2009
by: David Bacon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Madelaine and Harvey Dennenberg march in Washington, DC, with a delegation of Labor Against the War, a coalition of unions representing over a million members. (Photo: Jenny Brown / MR Zine)
During the Cold War, many people with a radical vision of the world were driven out of our labor movement. Today, as unions search for answers about how to begin growing again and regain the power workers need to defend themselves, the question of social vision has become very important. What is our vision in labor? What are the issues that we confront today that form a more radical vision for our era?
The labor movement worked hard to elect Barack Obama president and a new Democratic majority in Congress, creating new possibilities for gaining labor law reform, universal healthcare, immigration reform and ending the Iraq war. But to win even these reforms, promised by the Obama campaign, unions will have to do more than simply support the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Labor's ability to move forward depends on finding a new and deeper relationship with its own members, and their willingness to fight for even a limited set of demands. Our history tells us that when workers have been inspired by a vision of real social change, the labor movement grows in numbers, bargaining strength and political power.
At the heart of any radical vision for our era is globalization - the way unions approach the operation of capitalism on an international scale. In the discussion that led to creation of the Change to Win federation, the Service Employees made a proposal about how unions should conduct their international relationships. It called on unions to find partners in other countries, even to organize those unions, in order to face common employers. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka said the same thing in New York ten years earlier, when the Sweeney administration was elected. At the time, it represented a big change from the Cold War - that unions would cooperate with anyone willing to fight against our common employers. It rejected by implication the anticommunist ideology that put us on the side of employers and US foreign policy and shamed us before the world.
This idea is an example of pragmatic solidarity, and a good first step out of that Cold War past. But it is no longer radical enough to confront the new challenges of globalization - the huge displacement and migration of millions of people, the enormous gulf in the standard of living dividing developed from developing countries, and the wars fought to impose this system of global economic inequality. What's missing is a response from the labor movement to US foreign policy. International solidarity involves more than multinational corporations. Corporate globalization and military intervention are intertwined, and in the labor movement there's hardly any discussion of their relationship. In the aftermath of 9/11, this led some unions into support for the "war on terror," and eventually even into support for the Iraq invasion. Unless unions can begin to see military intervention and corporate globalization as part of the same system, many will support the war in Afghanistan a
s a new and popular Democratic president calls for increased intervention.
Unions in the rest of the world are not simply asking us whether we will stand with them against General Electric, General Motors or Mitsubishi. They want to know: What is your stand about aggressive wars, military intervention and coups d'etat? If we have nothing to say about these things, we will not have the trust and credibility we need to build new relationships of solidarity.
US corporations operating in countries such as Mexico and El Salvador are, in some ways, opportunistic. They take advantage of an existing economic system, and make it function to produce profits. They exploit the difference in wages from country to country, and require concessions from governments for setting up factories. But what causes the poverty in El Salvador that they exploit to their advantage? What drives a worker into a factory that, in the United States, we call a sweatshop? What role does US policy play in creating that system of poverty?
Unions need the kind of discussion in which workers try to answer these questions. Labor education is more than technical training in techniques for grievance handling and collective bargaining. It has to be about politics, in the broadest and most radical sense. When unions don't work with their members to develop a framework to answer these questions, they become ineffective in fighting about the issues of peace and war, globalization and their consequences, such as immigration.
When the AFL-CIO campaigned in Washington against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, labor lobbyists went up to Capitol Hill to mobilize pressure on Congress. Some unions went to their local affiliates and asked members to make phone calls and write letters. But what was missing was education at the base. Had unions educated and mobilized their members against the Contra war in Nicaragua, and the counterinsurgency wars in El Salvador and Guatemala (and certainly many activists tried to do that), US workers would have understood CAFTA much more clearly over a decade later. But because there's so little effort to create a conscious, educated union membership, it will be hard to get members to act when labor's Washington lobbyists need them to defeat new trade agreements, in the upcoming battles over the Colombian and South Korean FTAs.
The root of this problem is a kind of American pragmatism that disparages education. We need to demand more from those who make the decisions and control the purse strings in our unions.
Since grinding poverty in much of the world is an incentive for moving production, defending the standard of living of workers around the world is as necessary as defending our own. The logic of inclusion in a global labor movement must apply as much to a worker in Iraq as it does to the nonunion worker down the street. The debate over the Iraq war at the AFL-CIO convention in 2005 highlighted more than the effects of the war at home. It proposed that even in the face of US military intervention, US and Iraqi workers belong to the same global labor movement, and have to find common ground in opposing those policies that brought the war about.
The generation of antiwar, solidarity activists who were young marchers and war veterans during Vietnam, and rank-and-file militants during the Central American interventions, today is leading unions. Some of them may have forgotten those roots, but many have not. They're tired of seeing their movement remain quiet when the US military is used to prop up an economic system they're fighting at home. The labor movement may be awash in internal dissention, but it has grown surprisingly united in opposition to the Iraq war. US Labor Against the War, which started as a collection of small groups in a handful of unions, has today become a coalition of unions representing over a million members, and represents the thinking of an overwhelming majority. Its resolutions, passed in convention after convention, are the product of grassroots action at the bottom of the US labor movement, not a directive from the top.
Iraqis themselves provided US workers with a new way of looking at the occupation. Iraqi unemployment has been at 70 percent since it started. Order 30, issued by occupation czar Paul Bremer in September 2003 (and still in force), lowered the base wage in public enterprises, where most permanently employed Iraqis work, to $35 a month and ended subsidies for food and housing. Law 150, issued by Saddam Hussein in 1987 to prohibit unions and collective bargaining in the public sector, was continued under the occupation. The current Iraqi government still forbids the Oil Ministry to formally recognize the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), seizes union bank accounts and won't allow unions to function normally.
Iraqi unions see these moves as a way to soften up workers to ensure they don't resist the privatization of the country's economy, particularly its oil. Iraqi unions, especially the IFOU, are the backbone of the country's popular movement against oil privatization, without which the multinational oil giants would have taken control of the industry long ago. In Iraq, as in most developing countries, privatization defies the tradition of social solidarity. Iraq needs its oil revenues to rebuild the country, creating a public sector that can put people to work and ensure a self-sustaining national economy.
So US labor's call for rapid withdrawal should mean more than just bringing US soldiers home. It should put American workers on the side of Iraqis, as they resist the transformation of their country for the benefit of a wealthy global elite. This is a transformation happening in country after country. Iraq is a place where US workers can see it clearly, if the labor movement would give them the information and material they need. They certainly won't get it from the mainstream press, but they could get this education from their unions.
That education would help workers understand the political and economic objectives of war and intervention. It would help them understand the huge displacement of people caused by the effort to maintain this unjust system. And that, in turn, would help them understand why we see waves of those displaced people moving around the world, including coming to the US.
Opposing the war means fighting for the self-interest of our members, and being able to identify that self-interest with the interest of workers in Iraq. The same money that pays for the corrupt contracts with KBR and Blackwater is money that doesn't get spent on schools here at home. We won't have the money for a New Deal-style economic recovery under President Obama, much less a full-employment economy, without peace. It's that simple. And to imagine that we can produce millions of jobs at home, and keep people in their foreclosed homes, while fighting yet another war in Afghanistan, is a dangerous illusion.
Union members are not ignorant. They think about the issues of war and jobs all the time. They are becoming more sophisticated and better at understanding the way global issues from war to trade affect the lives of people in the streets of US cities. A more radical program of labor education would not be swimming against the tide, but with it.
At the same time, however, educating union members alone is not enough. A radical vision should address workers far beyond the formal ranks of organized labor. The percentage of union members is declining, and the organization union members need to put their understanding into practice is getting smaller. Deeper political awareness alone will not create a larger labor movement.
Just after the Second World War, unions represented 35 percent of US workers. It's no coincidence that the McCarthy era, when the Cold War came to dominate the politics of unions, was the beginning of the decline. By 1975, after the Vietnam War, union membership had dropped to 26 percent. Today only 12 percent of all workers, and eight percent in the private sector, are union members. Declining numbers translate into a decline in political power and economic leverage. California (with one-sixth of all union members), Hawaii and New York have higher union density than any other states. But even here, labor is facing a war for political survival.
While the percentage of organized workers has declined, unions have made important progress in finding alternative strategic ideas to the old business unionism. If these ideas are developed and extended, they provide an important base for making unions stronger and embedding them more deeply in working-class communities. But it's a huge job. Raising the percentage of organized workers in the United States from just 12 to 13 percent means organizing over a million people, and our goal should be to double that percentage. Only a social movement can organize people on this scale.
Gaining a fairer process for winning union recognition and collective bargaining agreements, and real penalties on employers for anti-union firings, puts the Employee Free Choice Act deservedly at the center of labor's political agenda. But a legal process alone will not create strong unions. Only a movement among workers themselves, in which rank-and-file members play a much more active role, can build unions that will survive an employer offensive, and that can fight effectively for social reforms, from single-payer health care to true legalization and equality for immigrants.
In addition to labor law reform and structural reforms to make unions more effective, the labor movement needs a program that will inspire people to organize on their own. Unions need to lose their fear of radical demands, and reject the constant argument that any proposal that can't get through Congress next year is not worth fighting for. One big part of that program is peace. Another is reordering economic priorities.
Today working-class people have to fight just to keep their homes. For the last several decades, many were driven out of cities to lower-cost suburbs, often disproportionately workers of color. Now the families forced into unpayable loans in order to buy houses are losing them to the banks. This certainly calls for a return to the direct action of an earlier era. If we don't mobilize to keep our members in their homes, what good are we? But beyond direct action, unions and central labor councils need to have a concrete program for economic development, housing and jobs. That would start to give us something we lack: a compelling vision and a militant movement in the streets demanding action.
That's where millions of people have been for three May Days in a row now, in the largest street outpourings since the 1930's. To its credit, the labor movement helped raise the expectations of immigrants when the AFL-CIO passed a resolution in Los Angeles in 1999, putting forward a radical new program - amnesty for the undocumented, ending employer sanctions, reunification of families, and protecting the rights of all people, especially the right to organize. The marches and movements of immigrant workers of the last decade demonstrate convincingly the power of this radical political vision.
Congress, however, moved in a different direction, criminalizing work and migration, and proposing huge guest worker programs. While the congressional bills failed, states passed laws that were even worse. Mississippi made it a state felony for an undocumented worker to hold a job, with prison terms of up to five years. And the Bush administration simply began implementing by executive order the enforcement and guest worker measures it couldn't get through Congress. In the wave of raids that followed, hundreds of workers, including union members, have gone to federal prison on bogus criminal charges of identity theft, for inventing a Social Security number. And when nonunion workers have stood up for a union or a higher wage, raids have been used to terrorize them.
It is time for the labor movement to fight to stop this wave of anti-worker repression, and propose a freedom agenda for immigrants that will give people rights and an equal status with other workers on the job, and with their neighbors in their own communities. Instead of holding its finger to the political wind, labor has to convince a new administration that passing that program is not only politically possible, but also politically necessary to hold and expand Obama's own electoral base.
Instead of an alliance with employers based on Washington political calculations, winning immigrant rights requires an alliance between unions, immigrants and other communities of color. The common ground for building that alliance is linking immigrant rights to a real jobs program and a full-employment economy, with affirmative action that can come to grips with the devastation in communities of color, especially African-American communities. And without challenging the war, the resources for building that alliance will be lost on guns and more intervention.
The labor movement must inspire people with a broader vision of what is possible. Workers' standard of living is declining, and they often have to choose between paying their rent or mortgage or going to the doctor. There's something fundamentally wrong with the priorities of this society. Workers know it, and unions have to be courageous enough to say it.
Working families need a decent wage, but they also need the promise of a better world. For as long as we've had unions, workers have shown they'll struggle for the future of their children and their communities, even when their own future seems in doubt. But it takes a radical social vision to inspire that wave of commitment, idealism and activity.
It's happened before. The 1920's were filled with company unions, violence, strikebreakers and the open shop. A decade later, those obstacles were swept away. An upsurge of millions in the 1930's, radicalized by the Depression and left-wing politics, forced corporate acceptance of the labor movement for the first time in the country's history. Changes taking place in our unions and communities today can be the beginning of something just as large and profound. With more radicalism and imagination, the obstacles we face can become historical relics as quickly as did those of that earlier era
Massachusetts Labor Leaders Write to Obama Urging Passage of HR 676
February 18, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
Massachusetts Labor Leaders Write to Obama Urging Passage of HR 676
Forty Massachusetts labor leaders have written President Obama to inform him of the failure of the much touted ‘Massachusetts Plan’ and to tell him that the passage of HR 676 is the best way to implement his own healthcare goals.
The labor leaders state, “The chief problem with the Massachusetts plan is that it leaves private insurance companies at the center of the system through an individual mandate and expensive public subsidies….” The letter quotes AFL-CIO President John Sweeney’s statement at the time the Massachusetts Plan was enacted saying, “Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrich's health care reform proposals. And it is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate."
The Massachusetts labor leaders tell President Obama: “The best way to achieve your goals of universality, quality, and cost effectiveness is a national program based on improving and expanding Medicare to cover everyone. This would be accomplished by passing HR 676, the ‘Medicare for All’ legislation.”
FULL TEXT OF LETTER AND SIGNERS BELOW
MASSACHUSETTS LABOR FOR HEALTH CARE
c/o Jobs with Justice, 3353 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02130
Phone: (617) 524-8778, Fax: (617) 524-8996, Email: jwj@massjwj.net
February 18, 2009
Honorable Barack Obama, President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
We applaud your commitment to enact legislation that will improve health care in the United States. Health care continues to be a critical issue for workers at the bargaining table and -- as the crisis in the auto industry shows -- without a real solution responsible employers lose their competitive edge while employees suffer.
The undersigned labor leaders from Massachusetts, ask that you pursue a strong agenda for national, universal, publicly-funded health care as the best solution to address out-of-control health care costs and unacceptable levels of health care disparities.
The best way to achieve your goals of universality, quality, and cost effectiveness is a national program based on improving and expanding Medicare to cover everyone. This would be accomplished by passing HR 676, the "Medicare for all" legislation.
Although much-touted by some policy makers in Washington, the Massachusetts Plan has failed to address our concerns about costs and disparities and in some cases, has even made them worse.
The chief problem with the Massachusetts plan is that it leaves private insurance companies at the center of the system through an individual mandate and expensive public subsidies supported by taxes for plans that still don't provide enough coverage.
The law is too expensive for many individuals forced to buy health insurance. It has failed to control costs and it has cost the state far more than initially projected. As a result, many critical health care facilities that serve low-income communities are facing huge cuts, while health care premiums continue to rise by double digits year after year. The Massachusetts Plan is widely recognized as unsustainable and now that we are facing an economic crisis, it is even more problematic.
As John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO has said, "Who would have thought that Massachusetts …would take a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook for health care reform? Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrich's health care reform proposals. And it is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate."
We are part of a growing number of labor leaders in the labor movement who support HR 676, the "Medicare for All" bill, that is very similar to previous efforts sponsored by our own Senator Edward Kennedy. We believe that, given the lessons of Massachusetts, this approach is the most fiscally prudent and morally imperative direction for successful health care reform.
We thank you in advance for your commitment to health care reform and look forward to working with you to make it a reality.
Sincerely,
Pauline Arguin, President, UE Local 204, Esterline Ind., Haskon Div., Taunton, MA
Cliff Alzes, President, IAMAW Local 2654, Gloucester, MA
Barbara Beckwith and Charles Coe, Co-chairs, National Writers Union / UAW, Boston Chapter
Alex Brown, Vice President, IUE-CWA Local 201, Lynn, MA
Myles Calvey, Business Manager, IBEW Local 2222, Dorchester, MA
Jeff Crosby, President, North Shore Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Lynn, MA
Russ Davis, Director, Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, Boston, MA
Wilfred "Willie" Desnoyers, President, UAW MA State CAP Council
Sandy Eaton, Chair, Mass Nurses Association Region 5, Canton, MA
James Foley, Business Rep., IAMAW District 15, Boston, MA
Christine Folsom, Chair, Mass Nurses Association Region 1, Northampton, MA
Paul Georges, President, Merrimack Valley Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Lowell, MA
Mark Govoni, V.P. & Political Director, UFCW Local 1445, Dedham, MA
Fiore Grassetti, President Hampshire Franklin Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Northampton, MA
Donna Johnson, President, University Staff Association/MTA, UMass Amherst, MA
Donald Keith, President, UE Local 269, Erving Paper Co., Erving MA
John Kelly, President, IBEW Local 2321, North Andover, MA
Peter Knowlton, District President, UE Northeast Region, Taunton, MA
Stephen Lewis, Treasurer, SEIU Local 509, Watertown, MA
Bill Lynch, President, UE Local 262, Boston, MA
Dick Monks, Vice-President, IUOE Local 877, Norwood, MA
Joseph Montagna, Business Agent, AEEF-CWA Local 1300, WGBH, Somerville, MA
Carl Olsen, Pres., UE Local 248, Mattapoisett, MA
Ron Patenaude, President of UAW Local 2322, Holyoke, MA
Randall Phillis, President, Massachusetts Society of Professor/MTA, Amherst, MA
Beth Piknick, President, Mass Nurses Association, Canton, MA
James Pimental, Reg. VP, Southeastern Mass. CLC and Secr-Treas, Southeastern Mass. Building Trades Council
Julie Pinkham, Executive Director, Mass Nurses Association, Canton, MA
Frank Rigiero, National Business Agent, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Worcester, MA
Cynthia Rodrigues, President Greater Southeastern Massachusetts Labor Council, AFL-CIO, New Bedford, MA
Lynne Starbard, Chair, Mass Nurses Association Region 2, Worcester, MA
Ed Starr, Business Manager, IBEW Local 2321, North Andover, MA
Stephanie Stevens, Chair, Mass Nurses Association Region 3, Sandwich, MA
Richard Stutman, President, Boston Teachers Union, AFT, Boston, MA
Daniel B. Totten, President, Boston Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA Local 31245
Don Trementozzi, President, CWA Local 1400, Boston, MA
Gael Wakefield, President, UE Local 274: Franklin County, Greenfield, MA
Jon Weissman, Secr-Treas, Pioneer Valley Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Springfield, MA
Brian Zahn, Chair, Mass Nurses Assoc. Region 4, Peabody, MA
cc: Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Massachusetts Congressional delegation
- Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
Distributed by
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551
Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http:/
02/18/09
TAKE ACTION on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - Tomorrow!
February 11, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
We are encouraging everyone to participate in our next National Call-in Day for HR 676.
TAKE ACTION on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - Tomorrow!
CALL CONGRESS, and the President Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121
(ask for your representative's office).
Find your representatives using your zip code
- If your member is a current co-sponsor, thank your rep. and ask him or her to stand firm for HR 676 and actively seek additional co-sponsors.
- If your member was a co-sponsor in the last Congress, ask him or her to sign on immediately as a co-sponsor in this Congress.
- If your member has yet to co-sponsor HR 676, ask him or her to please become a co-sponsor, select one or two talking points here.
HR676 would provide healthcare through an improved and expanded Medicare model for all with no co-pays, no deductibles, no premiums and no interference in the healthcare professionals’ relationship with patients – no insurance company involvement in clinical decisions. HR676 is a publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare reform plan that would give patients the choice of doctors and providers that many do not have under private, for-profit plans.
A little history in honor of President Abraham Lincoln, born 200 years ago this week:
In a letter to Col. William F. Elkins written November 21, 1864, Lincoln wrote: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
No doubt, President Lincoln heard much from nurses on the battlefield during the Civil War, as his precious Republic struggled for survival. Just as RNs advocate for patients in this nation today, nurses were present to advocate for their patients, as recounted by Sarah Emma Edmonds who was a Civil War nurse. In this excerpt from her memoir, she recounts her experiences at the Battle of Bull Run (also known as First Manassas), July 21, 1861.
"There was one patient, however, we did not put into an ambulance, and who was a great source of anxiety to us. He lay there upon a stretcher close by, waiting to be carried to a house not far distant. He was young, not seventeen, with clear blue eyes, curly auburn hair, and a broad, white brow; his mother's pride, and an only son. Two weeks previously he had been attacked with typhoid fever. The surgeon said, 'You may do all you can for him, but it is a hopeless case.' Mrs. B. had devoted most of her time to him and I was often called to assist her. He was delirious and became quite unmanageable at times, and it required all the strength we possessed to keep him in bed; but now the delirium of fever had passed away and he was helpless as an infant. We had written for his mother to come if possible, and had just received a letter from her, stating that she was on her way to Washington; but would she came before we were obliged to leave? Oh, we hoped so, and were anxiously looking for her.
"The ambulances started with their freight of emaciated, suffering men. Slowly that long train wound its way toward the city looking like a great funeral procession, and sadly we turned to our remaining patient, who was deeply affected at the removal of his comrades. He was then carried to the house above mentioned and a nurse left to take care of him, while we were obliged to prepare for our own comfort on the long weary march which was so near at hand. We had just commenced to pack our saddle bags, when we heard an unusual noise, as of some one crying piteously, and going out to learn the cause of the excitement, whom should we find but the mother of our handsome blue eyed patient. She had called at the surgeon's tent to inquire for her son, and he had told her that all the sick had been sent to Washington, he having forgotten for the moment, the exception with regard to her son. The first words I heard were spoken in the most touching manner – 'Oh, why did you send away my boy? I wrote you I was coming; Oh, why did you send him away!'
"I shall never forget the expression of that mother's face as she stood there wringing her hands and repeating the question. We very soon rectified the mistake which the surgeon had made, and in a few moments she was kneeling by the bedside of her darling boy."
In celebration of Abraham Lincoln's birthday:
Remind your member of Congress to honor Lincoln's words and the long tradition of nurses' advocacy for healthcare for all Americans as we look to reform his precious nation's healthcare system. Urge your member to accept testimony from panelists to explore the serious flaws in the Massachusetts health plan and examine why it cannot serve as a national model for providing universal and comprehensive care, on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 2:00pm-4:00pm, 2226 Rayburn House Office Building.
Thank you so much for taking the time,
California Nurses Association
National Nurses Organizing Committee
2000 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
www.CalNurses.org
www.GuaranteedHealthcare.org
Madoff Swindled Millions of Dollars From Labor Union Pension Funds
February 11, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
Madoff Swindled Millions of Dollars
From Labor Union Pension Funds
By Harry Kelber
The financial damage coming out of the Bernard Madoff investment scandal is now spreading from charities and wealthy individuals to labor union pension funds. In recent days, several union leaders have confessed to being caught up in Madoff’s investment scheme, which will result in massive pension losses to their members.
One union, the Carpenters local in Syracuse, N.Y. lost the majority of the $100 million to $150 million it had in pension money because of its dealings with Madoff, people close to the matter said.
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 267 is reporting that it has lost $48 million dollars from its pension fund, A letter from the union says all of its funds have been impacted by Madoff, and it’s still unclear how much money as lost.
A Roofers union local says Bernie Madoff’s scam may have cost its pension fund an estimated $14 million, about 15 percent of the total. Some members are saying there is only enough money in the fund to pay current retirees through the next five months or so.
Members of Operating Engineers Local 545 were notified last month by the administrator of the Engineers Joint Board that about 15 percent of the joint pension funds had been lost through investments with Madoff. Losses to the Welfare Fund, SUB Fund and Training Fund are much higher, but have yet to be assigned a dollar value.
We Ought to Be Told What’s Happening to Our Dues Money?
Organized labor at all levels has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in stocks, bonds, banks, corporations and other profit-making ventures, but it is amazing how little we know about how our money is spent, and that our leaders just won’t tell us.
There’s no question that both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win have suffered losses during the global economic slowdown, but how much? Neither of them has dared to inform members of the losses we’ve incurred the past few months
But there’s a larger question
: How are our leaders spending the hundreds of millions of dollars they get from our dues money every year? Aren’t we entitled to have a breakdown of how much they’ve spent on organizing, conferences, salaries, political campaigns and other activities? We’re not getting that information until enough of us raise our voices and demand it.With so much money around, it’s an invitation and motivation for wild, risky investments, for exorbitant expense accounts, for hiring high-priced consultants who are not really needed—all of this from our dues money. We’re not making any charges, but the temptation for embezzlement can be seductive.
We must put an end to this outrageous, tight-fisted denial of our rights. We must demand periodic reports of what they are doing with our money,
If they don’t comply, we should consider withholding our dues payments until they do.
On Thursday, February 12 (Lincoln’s Birthday), there will be a press release announcing an important endorsement by Labor’s Voice for Change.
Conference of Missouri Utility Unions Endorses HR 676
February 10, 2009 by Eric F
Comments (0)
Conference of Missouri Utility Unions Endorses HR 676
Jefferson City, Missouri. A statewide conference of all local unions,
representing employees who work for all of Missouris utilities, has
endorsed HR 676, single payer healthcare legislation introduced by
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI).
The Missouri State Labor Utility Workers Conference represents more than
15,000 workers at every utility company in the state. It is comprised of
local unions from CWA, IBEW, Ironworkers, Utility Workers, Gas Workers and
Power Plant workers and is chaired by Tony Ellebracht of CWA Local 6300.
Ellebracht said, HR 676 is the best one out there. We have to come up
with some sort of national healthcare for all of us, not just union
members. Neither unions or employers can afford health insurance. We
have to come up with a plan for affordable healthcare.
#30#
HR 676 would institute a single payer health care system in the U.S. by
expanding a greatly improved Medicare system to every resident.
HR 676 would cover every person in the U. S. for all necessary medical
care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient
services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental
health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for
substance abuse), vision care, chiropractic and long term care.
HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save billions
annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private
health insurance industry and HMOs.
In the 110th Congress, HR 676 had 93 co-sponsors in addition to Conyers
HR 676 has been endorsed by 484 union organizations in 49 states including
118 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 39 state
AFL-CIO's (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO,
MN, ME, AR, MD-DC, TX, IA, AZ, TN, OR, GA, OK, KS, CO, IN, AL, CA, AK, MI,
MT, NE, NY, NV & MA).
For further information, a list of union endorsers, or a sample
endorsement resolution, contact:
Kay Tillow
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551
Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http:/
02/09/09
|