SEARCH
Labor Secretary Solis: ‘Level the Playing Field’ |
|
 |
|
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Elections have consequences. Speaking today in an interview with The Washington Post, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis re-affirmed the administration’s commitment to passing the Employee Free Choice Act and restoring workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain.
Here’s what Solis had to say about why we need the Employee Free Choice Act:
I think it helps to level the playing field because, in many cases, workers have been disadvantaged. They’ve been intimidated, they’ve been harassed, and we have case after case after case that we can look at. And you probably hear from the opposing side, that they will say, “Well, no, there have been successes where people have been able to organize, and they have been able to push forward a unionization.” But when you look at the attempts that have been made over the past few years…there have been barriers that have been put up. And I think that the past administration was not very favorable for unions. They were not supportive in many ways.
A video of the interview with Solis, which includes a discussion of green jobs, the unemployment rate, worker training and wages, is available here, and a transcript is available here.
It’s refreshing to have an advocate for working families in such a critical position. Solis is the child of two union members and has a record in Congress of supporting workers—including co-sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act.
Make no mistake, this is going to be a tough fight against determined corporate opposition, but the efforts of working families in 2006 and 2008 have given us strong pro-worker majorities in Congress, a president who will sign the Employee Free Choice Act and a secretary of labor who actually fights on behalf of workers.
President Barack Obama and his administration have reiterated several times their continued support for the Employee Free Choice Act. Working families won in 2008, and now it’s time to make our economy work for everyone again.
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If there was ever a time for the Employee Free Choice Act, that time is now. Not only is it nearly impossible to form a union without fear and intimidation by employers, but union-busting has grown into a $4 billion a year business in the U.S. alone. Companies that previously had good relationships with their union employees have been emboldened by weak labor laws. One of those is the McGraw-Hill Companies. Read more at:
http://nabetcwa54.org
Her position is very understandable, given her family background. She didn’t elaborate, but I wonder - what specific things the past administration did that were “not very favorable for unions”? I think it might be argued their tone was not big labor supportive, but what specific actions did they take against the same?
What bush did to the person that commented before me was let corporations break the law and step all over there employees on there way to make as much money as they could. All off the hard work of there employees. Why did from 2000 to 2008 the bush yrs did the average person wages ajused for inflation did not go up at all. A person might of got a raise but the money they make with that raise buys less then the money they made the yr before even if they got the same hours. Also bush’s labor secratary cared nothing about workers just bush’s pro ceo-corporation agenda. which took money away from workers and put extra in the pockets of greedy elite people.
Charles151 - These are generalities that could be explained by a number of things, such as market forces, the economy, inlflation, productivity, global competetion, etc. I think many of the same things could have probably been said about the Clinton years.
Were you out of the country the last 8 years or just living under a rock? The list of SPECIFIC things that the Bush Administration did to hinder and obstruct unions is LONG, but here’s just a few.
TSA - prevented them from organizing.
FAA - refused to negotiate a contract with air traffic controllers, among other things.
definition of “manager” - the Bush appointed NLRB changed the definition of a supervisor/manager such that tens of thousands of workers who had been non-exempt (therefore, elegible for collective bargaining rights) were now considered “exempt”.
ridiculous union paperwork - changed the regs that had been in place for decades regarding reporting requirements for unions. These rules were unnecessary by pretty much all objective accounts and cost unions nearly $1 billion/year and thousands of hours of paperwork. That effected unions’ ability to do things like organize and represent workers.
The following don’t affect just unions, but all workers, union or otherwise. But because the Dept of Labor, OSHA, MSHA, etc. weren’t doing their jobs, it fell to unions to see that the laws were enforced. That meant unions had to divert valuable resources away from organizing to filing grievances and court cases so that workers’ rights would be protected.
OSHA - Delayed implementing many standards, including those for ergonomics.
Mines - Failed to timely implement improved mine safety standards.
pay theft - let a massive backlog of pay theft cases accumulate, essentially not enforcing the laws.
Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - Bush’s promise to veto led to the bill dying in 2007.
Vetoed min wage bill(s).
And let’s not forget all those “FREE” trade agreements. What do you think all those plant closings do to unions?
There are hundreds examples (especially NLRB rulings) but I’m not going to do your homework for you.
When is President Obama going to reaffirm his support of the Employee Free Choice Act? The EFCA was a staple of his platform, and Labor played a pivotal role in getting him elected. Mr. President, never mind bi-partisan solutions, the Democrat Party is very much the “majority party.” It’s time for Labor leadership to “call in” the favors and for President Obama to start “twisting some arms.” In other words, “put up or shut up.’ And if you don’t “put up,” then it’s time for Labor finish the work that the late Tony Mazzochi started and begin a US LABOR PARTY in earnest, something which England and Australia did well over 100 years ago.