**Contact your State Rep and demand that they oppose this bill that is clearly out to weaken our Unions and Pennsylvania Working Families!**

HARRISBURG — Paycheck protection could move to the House floor this week a midst dragging budget negotiations frayed by Gov. Tom Corbett’s pension ultimatum. Whether the bill will get on to the full chamber’s agenda before lawmakers recess for the summer remains unclear.

The House State Government Committee called a last-minute off-the-floor meeting on Monday to vet House Bill 1507 — which would ban unions from using automatic paycheck deductions to collect dues — and a proposed amendment that would clarify definitions within the legislation and allow payroll deductions for fair share contributions.

Democratic committee members failed twice to table both votes and sparred with their GOP counterparts over the legitimacy of the bill and the “inappropriate” way in which Monday’s meeting was organized.

“Let’s tell the truth and call this legislation what it is,” said Rep. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia, just before voting against the bill. “This is not about protecting taxpayer’s money … it is clearly about union busting.”

Committee Democrats piled on top of Harris’s comment, each attacking the bill for “singling out” unions and ignoring other payroll-deducted contributions, such as for insurance companies, who they say also use the money for lobbying.

Committee Republicans rebuffed the fervor with a “common sense, right-versus-wrong” mantra.
“I think this a very simple matter,” said Rep. Brad Roae, R-Crawford. “It’s an easy vote. I don’t understand what all the controversy is about. It’s always wrong to use local property tax money to pay school district employees to collect political campaign money. The unions are the only ones allowed to do it. It’s always wrong. We have former legislators that went to prison because they were using tax money for campaign purposes. Political campaign money and taxpayer money are two totally unrelated pots of money.”

The amendment passed on a vote of 14-9 and the bill passed on a vote of 14-10.

Steve Miskin, spokesman for House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, said Monday the bill had been sent to the House Rules Committee, but offered no further insight into its future.

By Tim Koechlin

– Across the country, Republican legislatures — encouraged and financed, as usual, by corporate money and right wing think tanks — have undertaken a stunning array of initiatives designed to weaken unions and otherwise undermine American workers. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, along with several other Republican governors, has moved aggressively and conspicuously to disempower public sector unions. Nikki Haley, the Republican Governor of South Carolina, recently declared that unionized businesses are not welcome in South Carolina.

Republicans tell a tired, cynical story about all of this, insisting that union busting is, somehow, good for the economy and good for workers. It’s the same old trickle down nonsense.

Democrats, on the other hand, have done too little to defend unions and worker rights.

This systematic attack on unions is, of course, bad for working Americans. Unionized workers in the U.S. earn more money than non-union workers with similar skills (14 percent more, according to the Economic Policy Institute). Unionized workers are 28 percent more likely to have employer provided health insurance and 54 percent more likely to have employer provided pensions. Unionized workers enjoy more vacation time, and they are more productive than non-union workers. Countries with high rates of union coverage enjoy lower rates of inequality and lower rates of poverty, and their workers enjoy greater economic security. And, further, a robust union movement raises pay and working conditions for non-union workers as well.

What’s not to like?

In 1973, 27 percent of U.S. workers were unionized. Now, it’s just 13 percent — the lowest rate among the world’s rich (“industrialized”) countries. It is no coincidence that the U.S. is, by every reasonable measure, the most unequal of the world’s rich countries.

Since 1979, the share of income going to the top 1 percent in the U.S. has grown by more than 300 percent. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated — and, for many millions, declined — even as labor productivity (the value of a worker’s output in an hour) has more than doubled! In 1978, CEOs earned 26 times more than a typical worker. In 2013, CEOs at the largest 350 U.S. corporations earned 296 times more than a typical worker! This stunning and appalling redistribution of income — economy-wide, and within corporations — is in part the result of massive tax cuts for the rich and the erosion of corporate accountability (aka “deregulation”). It is also the result of a systematic effort to undermine the bargaining power of U.S. workers. Union busting has enriched capitalists at the expense of workers.

The Right insists that working class Americans are falling behind because of overly-generous “entitlements” and overpaid public sector employees. In reality, the lost income of workers of all sorts — union and non-union, black and white, male and female, public sector and private sector — can be found in the pockets of the 1 percent.

A hundred years ago, U.S. workers — including millions of children — worked long hours for low wages in unsafe workplaces. Because of organized labor, the prospects for working Americans improved dramatically over the course of the 20th Century. Because of unions, millions of U.S. workers were able to achieve a middle class life — economic security, home ownership, health insurance, vacation time and, perhaps, a college education for their children. From 1948-1973, the incomes of working class families in the U.S. nearly doubled!

In addition to higher wages, the struggles of organized labor have delivered virtually every protection and benefit enjoyed by U.S. workers. Unions have brought working Americans the 40 hour week, paid vacation, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, overtime pay, child labor laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, whistleblower protection laws, sexual harassment laws, lunch breaks and coffee breaks, wrongful termination protection, sick leave, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the weekend and much more. These rights, benefits and norms were not gifts from employers. They are the result of relentless organized struggle by working Americans. And with each struggle, big business and its apologists have insisted that this change would fatally undermine their competitiveness.

As unionization rates have fallen over the past several decades, wages have stagnated and the “American Dream” has drifted out of reach for millions. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that plummeting rates of unionization account for one third of rising inequality in the U.S. since 1980.

Raising the pay of working Americans has to be at the top of a progressive agenda. And this means we have to prioritize the empowerment of the labor movement.

Are high rates of unionization possible in a global economy? Yes! Union coverage remains high in most European countries — over 90 percent in some cases — and union coverage has grown steadily over the past few decades in several countries. In a marvelous study of 21 rich countries, John Schmitt and Alexandra Mitukiewicz show that changes in unionization rates since 1960 have had little to do with globalization or changes in technology. They depend, rather, on a country’s “broad political environment.” Social Democratic countries have seen unionization rates rise. “Liberal market economies” (the U.S., UK and others) have seen unionization rates drop. De-unionization is not an imperative of the global market. It is a political choice.

But aren’t unions prone to corruption? Sometimes (although way less often than right wingers would have us believe). And some parents are abusive. Some doctors commit fraud. And some bankers are greedy and mendacious. It does not follow that we’d be better off without families, doctors, or a financial sector. Nor does it follow that workers are better off without unions.

The U.S. has long been a hostile environment for unions, and this has been especially true since 1980, when the Reagan administration declared war on organized labor. Cornell’s Kate Bronfenbrenner has chronicled the increasingly aggressive (and often illegal) tactics used by employers to block organizing efforts, and the meager protections available to organizers and workers.

The Republican Party’s economic policy agenda has not changed for decades. Cut taxes for the 1%. Deregulate – so that banks can run wild and corporations can pollute with impunity. And undermine the bargaining power of workers. Union busting is central to the Republican brand.

Working class Americans have been losing ground for 35 years. To reverse this, we need a re-empowered and a re-legitimized labor movement. We need to tell the truth about unions and union busters. We need to actively support our allies in the labor movement, and we need to demand that our representatives work to create a political and legal environment that facilitates the growth of unions and union representation.

And, relentlessly, we need to ask our representatives – especially fearful, cautious, and misguided Democrats: Which side are you on?

Unions are good for workers. It’s that simple.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-koechlin/which-side-are-you-on-unions_b_5517913.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Busines

By Bill Knight

– When Anchorage, Alaska, Mayor Dan Sullivan last month called union dues “slavery,” he was echoing not just the familiar, wrong-headed claims of so-called Right To Work types and extremist Republicans.

When Anchorage, Alaska, Mayor Dan Sullivan last month called union dues “slavery,” he was echoing not just the familiar, wrong-headed claims of so-called Right To Work types and extremist Republicans. He also may have foreshadowed a pending decision by a conservative Court that in recent years has seemed too willing to make decisions to benefit corporations at the expense of everyday Americans and their labor unions.

The U.S. Supreme Court this month is expected to rule on a case from Illinois that could damage the labor movement as much as the “Citizens United” and “McCutcheon” rulings hurt democracy.

At a May forum for GOP candidates for Alaska’s Lieutenant Governor, Sullivan was asked about Right To Work laws, which prohibit clauses in labor agreements that provide for the collection of union dues from workers benefiting from the contracts. Such laws are a favorite Right Wing cause, because they deprive unions of funds to function, which decreases workers’ power to raise living standards through collective bargaining.

Oddly, the mayor’s seeking higher office in a state that’s one of the country’s most unionized states. In Illinois, “Harris v. Quinn” has already been argued before the Court, and as Justices weigh their opinions, labor activists are preparing for the worst, which could be very bad.

“Harris v. Quinn” — Quinn being Gov. Pat Quinn — is a bigger threat than many realize, according to a Service Employees International Union attorney who worked on that union’s friend-of-the-court brief.

The Court’s already used the 1st Amendment’s free-speech guarantee to declare that “money is speech” and let the cash flow in “McCutcheon” and “Citizens United.” But SEIU lawyer Nicole Berner said the Justices may use the amendment’s right of free association to grant the Right To Work forces’ demand: To bar unions from collecting money — even money just for contract bargaining and administration — from their own members.

If the Supreme Court rules against organized labor, the Court would turn all 50 states into Right To Work (for Less) states where unions are prohibited from negotiating contracts calling for dues deductions – states where unions are weakened, wages are lower and workers have fewer “rights.”

The Supreme Court would be saying “our whole collective bargaining system violates the 1st Amendment,” Berner said.

Her warning came at a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, about a week after Sullivan’s remark. Although Berner’s panel discussed the 1st Amendment — which guarantees freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly and to seek redress for grievances — comments turned to campaign finance and the Supreme Court.

“The Right To Work Committee and home-care attendants in Illinois [a few who objected to a majority vote to organize and affiliate with SEIU] said that by charging a fee for administering the contract, the union was violating their 1st Amendment right of free association,” Berner said. “This decision would weaken the entire labor movement and the whole progressive community, because of the strength labor provides.”

Lower courts dismissed the case, saying the Right To Work committee had no standing to sue because the payments didn’t hurt that group. But the Supreme Court took the case, and in the next few weeks could eviscerate workers’ unions.

Dues are the financial means by which member organizations share common costs, of course. In the case of labor unions, dues help underwrite the expenses of representation — bargaining and enforcing contracts — that achieves better pay, hours and working conditions.

For a Court so chummy with Big Business, that may not matter.

What matters to workers whose unions help give them the legal power to bargain collectively instead of singly is what could happen with an adverse — even hostile — decision.

Anticipating that the majority of the Justices could rule against unions, Berner told Press Associates Inc. that SEIU already is considering new ways workers could organize.

If the Court rules against collecting dues, labor would have to rely on voluntary contributions and that usually results in drastically falling revenues. (For example, public-sector unions in Wisconsin saw their revenues fall by half after Right Wing Republican Gov. Scott Walker successfully got the GOP legislature to cut off dues collections.) Preparing for such a worst-case scenario, SEIU says it leaves unions an alternative: Becoming a membership organization like the NAACP “where it could build power and people in the broad sense,” Berner said.

“This case is pushing us faster in that direction,” she said. “We have to figure out a different way to be strong.”

Contact Bill at Bill.Knight@hotmail.com; his twice-weekly columns are archived at billknightcolumn.blogspot.com.

Source – http://www.cantondailyledger.com/article/20140619/NEWS/140619205/-1/sports

By Mike Dunn

— Amid the latest school funding crisis, Philadelphia local advocates are pushing for a city ballot question on whether to return the school district to local control, effectively putting the School Reform Commission out of business.

The problem is, the decision rests in Harrisburg, not City Hall.

Before adjourning for the summer, a City Council committee heard from school advocates who want a ballot question in Philadelphia this November on whether the school district should return to local governance.

The vote would have no legal impact, as the governance question rests with the governor and state legislature.

But Hillary Linardopoulos, of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, said the ballot question would be an important, symbolic, statement.

“Even though it’s non-binding, it still is an official proclamation,” she told the council members. “If it has the result of showing what the Philadelphia residents want, it will be a mandate for the new governor.”

But most council members on the Law and Government Committee were lukewarm to the idea.

Councilman Bill Greenlee objected to the idea of using charter-change resolutions to make political statements.

“We’re slowly turning the city charter into an opinion poll,” Greenlee said. “What if the churches got together and wanted a ballot question to ban gay marriage? Would you want that on the ballot? Do we keep going in that direction?”

And councilwoman Marian Tasco voiced the fear that a school governance ballot question could prompt Harrisburg lawmakers to actually give back control and then walk away from the obligation to increase funding.

“The majority of (legislators) are from all over the state, and they all hate Philadelphia,” Tasco said. “Not all of them — some of them. So (they might say), ‘OK, let’s just see what we can do to give them what they want!’ “

In the end, the committee moved the proposal out of committee without approval or rejection. The idea next goes to the full Council, which is now in recess until the fall.

Source: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/22/teachers-union-wants-philadelphians-to-vote-on-school-district-control/#.U6d37FX1WFU.twitter

By The PA. AFL-CIO

– Governor Corbett made his intentions clear this week, he is even willing to miss the budget deadline so that he will have more time to push his extreme tea party agenda.

Gov. Corbett and his friends like Representative Tobash and Senator Wagner aren’t looking for fair solutions. They are waging an ideological war against workers and want to get rid of pensions once and for all. We need to draw a line in the sand now. It’s time for all of us to speak out and say we’ve had enough.

To E-Mail Your Legislators Now, Go To: http://act.aflcio.org/c/236/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8707

The legislative proposals on the table would do nothing to reduce the debt that had been created through years of underfunding by the State, but they would all but eliminate any sort of retirement security for public workers. In spite of these facts, Corbett is pushing ahead and demanding action on this bankrupt agenda, because for the Governor and his allies in the House and Senate this is not about crafting good policy that works for Pennsylvania, this is about scoring an ideological victory in their war against workers.

We have beaten back these attacks several times before, but in order to win, we have to be successful EVERY time – Corbett and his anti-worker allies only need to manage one successful vote!

Don’t let Monday be the day that the anti-worker agenda succeeds in Pennsylvania!

To E-Mail Your Legislators Now and Demand that they stand with workers and OPPOSE Corbett’s extreme attacks on pensions, Go To: http://act.aflcio.org/c/236/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8707

Source: http://www.paaflcio.org/?p=4210