Philadelphia, PA – This month, Pennsylvania dropped to 49th in the nation in job growth because of Tom Corbett’s harmful economic policies.

“Governor Corbett has overseen a Pennsylvanian economy in decline,” said Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn. “The last economic report just further illustrates how disastrous Tom Corbett’s economy has been for the middle-class. Tom Corbett is more focused on giving tax breaks to corporations than he is on investing in education, lowering property taxes, and stemming rising tuition costs.”

Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Rate Is Higher Than The National Average. “The Department of Labor and Industry said Friday the state’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.9 percent in March, down from 8.1 percent in February.The national unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in March. [Associated Press, 4/19/13]

Pennsylvania Labor Force Falls Biggest Amount In 30 Years. “The size of Pennsylvania’s labor force shrank in March by the biggest one-month amount in almost three decades, as unemployment and payrolls also fell. A survey of households showed the number of people working or looking for work fell in March by 33,000 to just above 6.5 million. That’s the largest one-month drop since 1983.” [Associated Press, 4/19/13]

When Tom Corbett Took Office, Pennsylvania Was 7th in Job Growth.
[Job Growth USA, 01/11]

Now, Pennsylvania Ranks 49th In Job Growth. “Where’d everybody go? Earlier today I spoke with Mark Price, a labor economist with the Keystone Research Center. He noted — with the caveat that numbers can fluctuate from month to month — that in March Pennsylvania ranked 49th in the nation in job growth, ahead of only Wyoming.” [Philadelphia Daily News, 4/23/13]

Pennsylvania Is The Only State In The Nation With An Over-The-Year Percentage Decrease In Employment.
“The only over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred in Pennsylvania (-0.1 percent).” [Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 04/19/13]

IATSE LOCAL 8 SUSPENDED STRIKE ACTIVITIES AGAINST ELECTRIC FACTORY THIS PAST FRIDAY, APRIL 27, AS LEGENDARY PHILLY BAND, THE HOOTERS LEND THEIR SUPPORT – PHILADELPHIA, PA

— The Stagehands of IATSE 8, who have been on strike against Philadelphia-based Electric Factory Concerts for the past month, having set up picket lines outside the concert venue (located at 421 North 7th Street) over area wages and standards, put their strike on hold, however, during The Hooters concert at the Electric Factory, this past Friday, April 27th, 2013 because the enormously popular and influential band – some of whose members come from families steeped in the labor movement – secured an agreement with IATSE Local 8 stagehands for their Philly shows.

“IATSE Local 8 would like to thank Dave Uosikkinen and the all the members of The Hooters for their support of workers issues,” said Michael Barnes, Business Manager of IATSE Local 8.

Thus the union ceased all picketing, hand billing and social media activities as part of the settlement for last Friday’s Hooters show only.

“IATSE Local 8 looks forward to working with The Hooters on all their future shows in the Philadelphia area in venues that maintain the area standards established by stagehands over the last fifty years” Barnes concluded, “IATSE will be contacting every act scheduled for the Electric Factory to offer a one time pass for their scheduled event. This will prevent any disruption to fans that have already purchased tickets.

Going forward, the union has committed to work with the Hooters and all the acts to bring the best experience to the fans at venues that maintain the area standards. We hope more acts will follow the lead of The Hooters and The Drop Kick Murphy’s (who previously also supported the union) in supporting working men and women.

Written by Keegan Gibson, Managing Editor

Voters aren’t keen on Gov. Tom Corbett’s plan to privatize the state’s liquor stores, according to a poll commissioned by the labor union most vocally opposed to the proposal. The survey was conducted by a Republican pollster.

47% oppose the plan and 41% support it. It’s the first publicly released survey to show privatization at a net negative. Its results are a contrast from overall attitudes about privatization; respondents said they favored privatizing government services 40% to 38%.

GOP firm Harper Polling surveyed 500 likely Pa. voters via interactive voice response from April 8-10. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.38%.

Update: several readers emailed me and noted in the comments below that partners with Long, Nyquist & Associates – which represents UFCW 1776 – are also partners in Harper Polling. Add that grain of salt to the one described below.

The results paint a bleaker picture for privatization than did a recent survey commissioned by the the conservative Commonwealth Foundation which found 61% support for it.

The latest independent poll on the issue, from Franklin & Marshall in February, showed 53% of voters supported privatization while 34% opposed it.

In the Harper poll released by UFCW, 60% said the issue shouldn’t be a priority for officials in Harrisburg. Ranked among other issues, liquor placed last (9%) among fixing the economy (41%), funding education (38%), and transportation (12%).

In the memo, pollster Brock McCleary said the intensity of opposition surpassed that of supporters.

“It’s the difference between the guy who wouldn’t mind having another liquor store in his neighborhood and the guy who’s going to lose his job if they privatize the store where he works,” he wrote.

UFCW President Wendell Young IV agrees.

“What this poll shows is very low intensity from the voters on this,” he said.

He said he initially commissioned the poll to be internal, but decided to release it on seeing the numbers.

“I needed a credible poll, a poll that wouldn’t just tell me what I wanted to hear,” he said. “This is a Republican firm, the mostly work for Republicans, they’re gonna give me a good, hard, conservative look.”

The United Food and Commercial Workers local 1776 labor union represents the employees of the current wine and spirits stores. The Governor’s plan would provide incentives for private spirits sellers who hire them, but critics like UFCW 1776 say that the proposal would exchange well-paying union jobs for minimum wage clerk positions.

The poll also tested some of the negative messaging against liquor privatization. A majority of respondents said they would be less likely to support Corbett’s plan if it meant easier access to booze for teenagers, lead to job losses, reduce revenue for the state, or cause booze to increase in price.

“The Governor, Lt. Governor and others like to say that 70%, 80% of people support this. But that’s not true,” said Young. “It comes in cycles. The public perception of this issue is one way, but when it comes to the clear light of testimony,” public support tends to drop, he said.

Just as with internal polls commissioned by campaigns, the results of internal polls from advocacy groups should be taken with a grain of salt. Typically, the group commissioning a poll has final say over the questions asked and the language therein.

In this case, the pollster asked about “Governor Corbett’s plan.” Given the Governor’s low approval ratings, it’s likely attaching his name to the question brought down its numbers.

Not to mention, the bill passed by the state House and has noteworthy differences from the plan Corbett proposed – as will likely be the case in the state Senate should the measure reach a vote there.

“It might have affected it by a few points,” Young conceded, “but this is nowhere near the 70, 80 points you hear,” from supporters.

Corbett has taken as prominent a role on the liquor issue as any during his tenure so far.

51% of respondents identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. 15% identified as liberal versus very conservative (19%), somewhat conservative (27%) and moderate (35%).

Here’s the poll questions and topline results:

Liquor Privatization Poll Toplines

Go To – http://www.politicspa.com/ufcw-poll-voters-oppose-corbett-liquor-plan/47660/

By Ann C Hodges and Prof. Ellen Dannin, Truthout | News Analysis

The strike has long been labor’s most powerful weapon. Strikes put pressure on the employer – which needs the employees’ labor to run the business – to agree to employees’ demands for fair wages and working conditions.

Strikes are also a public form of expression. Seeing striking workers marching in front of a workplace sends a message to the employer, to the public and to the workers themselves. It says that the workers stand together to fight for decent working conditions and that their dispute with the employer is so important that they are willing to lose pay to fight for a fair workplace. It tells the public and other workers that they might not want to patronize, or work for, the employer unless changes are made. Strikes build solidarity among the workers and help them maintain their resolve under the severe pressure of losing income while on strike. Strikes are also an expression of control by the workers, who may feel that the employer treats them as if they were nothing more than a live form of raw materials.

Congress understood the importance of the strike to labor unions, so it protected strikes in two ways in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). First, strikes are covered by the broad protection Section 7 gives to all group actions directed at improving terms and conditions of employment. Despite this broad protection, which includes strikes, Congress thought it important to repeat in Section 13 that nothing in the law “except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike.”

This week’s installment in our series on the NLRA discusses permanent replacement of strikers, while next week’s installment will discuss other judicially created limits on the right to strike.

Although Congress made it clear that it viewed the strike as a right of utmost importance, the Supreme Court wasted no time in limiting and weakening the right to strike. In 1938, just three years after Congress approved the NLRA, in NLRB v. Mackay Radio (NLRB is the National Labor Relations Board),the Supreme Court said that employers had the right to permanently replace strikers. In other words, the court gave employers legal cover to fire strikers, despite the clear protection for strikes under Section 7 and 13.

While permanent replacement is not precisely the same as discharge, the fear of permanent replacement hangs over the right to strike.

What, you might ask, is the difference between replacing a striker and firing a striker?

A permanently replaced employee has the right to return to the job if, and when, the replacement worker leaves, creating a vacancy. This right may be important to a worker with long service whose replacement leaves soon after the strike ends.

But for many workers, replacement is no different than being fired. It means the replaced strikers must find other work to support themselves and their families. Even though they have a possible right to return to the job months or years later, that right is essentially worthless. Some people call striker replacement “industrial capital punishment.”

Most important, however, is that just the threat of being permanently replaced damages the right to strike. It takes away this important legal right because the great risk that striking workers may lose their jobs may discourage them from striking at all.

Where did the court in Mackay Radio find the right to permanently replace striking workers? It is nowhere to be found in the NLRA. It cannot be found written in any law. The court just presumed that the right to operate a business carries with it the right to replace striking workers permanently. The court did not even require the employer to prove that it could not continue to operate the business with supervisors or temporary replacements before taking the extraordinary step of permanently replacing the legally striking workers. The court gave this presumed right of employers more weight than the employees’ right to strike expressly granted to them by Congress.

In the last 30 years, employers have frequently used permanent replacements to defeat strikes. Just the threat of permanent replacement can destroy solidarity among striking workers. Those who are more easily replaced will be tempted to return to work when a threat is made, while workers with skills that are harder to find will be more able to resist the threats and remain on strike. As a result, bitter divisions can occur, further damaging the workers’ power. Although striker replacement is not the only reason strikes are far less common today, it is certainly an important factor. The reduction in the power of strikes has contributed to the view that the NLRA has outlived its usefulness. One reason for passage of the NLRA was to reduce widespread labor unrest and provide a peaceful method for settling labor disputes. With no realistic strike threat, employers have little need for the NLRA, and many would be happy to see its elimination. Without the judicial amendments, however, the language of the NLRA shines out as a powerful law intended to protect both management and labor alike.

Go To – http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15913-strike-and-youre-out-the-supreme-courts-destruction-of-the-right-to-strike

By Jackie Tortora

We’ve all seen the charts. As union membership rates go down, so goes the middle class and people’s ability to bargain for living wages and a voice on the job.

David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress (CAP) say, in Top 6 Policies to Help the Middle Class that Won’t Cost Taxpayers a Penny, that strengthening people’s ability to organize unions and to bargain collectively will go a long way in rebuilding the middle class.

If unionization rates increased by 10 percentage points—to roughly the level that they were in 1980—the typical middle-class household, unionized or not, would earn $1,501 more per year, according to research conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Madland and Walter suggest the following to ensure workers can form unions:

• The National Labor Relations Board should help put an end to needless election delays and modernize the union election process.
• Congress should pass comprehensive labor-law reform that establishes a fair process for workers to decide on union representation that expands coverage so that more workers are provided the right to organize; establishes meaningful penalties and remedies for workers who are fired or discriminated against for exercising their right to organize; and includes measures to promote productive bargaining between workers and companies.
• Congress should also make the right to join a union a civil right. This would give workers who are discriminated against in exercising their right to organize a private right to sue, just as workers have a right to sue if they face other forms of workplace discrimination.

Other fixes to boost the middle class include raising the minimum wage, allowing workers to earn paid sick leave and lowering monthly housing costs by providing homeowners with principal forgiveness. Read the rest on CAP’s website.

Go To – http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Organizing-Bargaining/Want-to-Build-the-Middle-Class-Make-Sure-Workers-Can-Easily-Form-and-Join-Unions