DURHAM — The University of New Hampshire’s contract lecturers voted to unionize during a formal election that ended Thursday.
The lecturers voted 141-23 in favor of union representation by the UNH Lecturers United-AAUP, according to a news release. The union election was held Thursday and last Wednesday on the Durham and Manchester campuses.
The result means the lecturers union can engage in collective bargaining with UNH administrators. The union plans to seek higher pay, job security and new evaluation policies, during negotiations with the university. Union members also want to set a firm date for contract renewal.
“It was an effort led by lecturers for lecturers that spread throughout both campuses,” union president Sarah Hirsch said in a statement. “We love teaching and want to remain vital to the future of instruction at UNH; collective bargaining is the best way to ensure fair, equitable policies and pay.”
University administrators opposed the unionization effort, calling instead for direct dialogue instead of collective bargaining. In a statement released Thursday, the university said it was “disappointed” with the results.
“UNH officials maintain that a union is not necessary to continue to make progress in areas of mutual concern, but the lecturers have expressed their preference,” spokeswoman Erika Mantz said.
The university has five days to file any objections and is currently reviewing its options, Mantz said.
Roughly 200 lecturers teach at UNH, and most work at the Durham campus. Although full-time lecturers receive benefits, they are often are paid less than tenure-track professors. Lecturers are not eligible for tenure.
Many lecturers have the same qualifications as tenure-track professors, such as advanced degrees and field experience.
“There are no written policies regarding our roles, opportunities, or even sick leave — these are basic employee considerations. A union ensures these policies will be enforced,” Hirsch said.
The results are not final until certified by the N.H. Public Employee Labor Relations Board.
UNH Lecturers United is a chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the same union that represents about 600 UNH professors.
(Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said on Wednesday he has been "assured" that if workers at the Volkswagen AG plant in his hometown of Chattanooga reject United Auto Worker representation, the company will reward the plant with a new product to build.
Corker's bombshell, which runs counter to public statements by Volkswagen, was dropped on the first of a three-day secret ballot election of blue-collar workers at the Chattanooga plant whether to allow the UAW to represent them.
Corker has long been an opponent of the union which he says hurts economic and job growth in Tennessee, a charge that UAW officials say is untrue.
"I've had conversations today and based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga," said Corker, without saying with whom he had the conversations.
In the past few weeks, Volkswagen officials have made several statements that the vote will have no bearing on whether the SUV will be made at the Chattanooga plant or at a plant in Puebla, Mexico.
National Labor Relations Board expert Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, who is professor of labor at the University of Indiana-Bloomington, said Corker was trying to intimidate workers into voting against the union.
"I'm really kind of shocked at Corker's statement," said Dau-Schmidt. "It's so inconsistent with what VW has been saying and VW's labor relations policy in general."
The Indiana professor also said Corker's comments "would be grounds to set the election aside and have to run it all over again at a later date" because it could be ruled to be interfering to the point that it is against federal labor law.
A spokeswoman for Corker did not respond when asked whether the senator also meant that a vote for the UAW would mean that the plant would not get the new product, which could create an estimated 1,500 new jobs.
Volkswagen officials did not return calls and emails for comment on Corker's statement.
Mike Burton of Southern Momentum, an anti-UAW group of plant workers, said Corker's statement makes sense.
"We are in a battle with Mexico on where this new product goes," said Burton, "and it stands to reason that the union will add costs. We need to keep costs down to fight for that new product."
Another labor expert, Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley, said, "The senator's comments amount to economic intimidation that undermines the whole nature of union representation elections."
Shaiken often advises UAW officials.
"If the senator's statement doesn't violate the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law," Shaiken said.
Gary Casteel, UAW regional director for a 12-state area that includes Tennessee, said on Wednesday night, "Corker's statement is in direct contradiction to Volkswagen's statements.
"They have specifically said that this vote will have no bearing on the decision of where to place the new product."
In the past, Casteel has said that Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant, opened in 2011, needs a second product to survive. It has built the compact Passat sedan since it opened.
The plant has about 1,550 Volkswagen workers eligible to vote in the election, which is supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.
Pro- and anti-UAW workers said they were not sure if snowy weather will affect turnout for the vote, which ends on Friday when the plant does not produce cars.
On Wednesday - day one of the vote - the night shift was canceled after only one car was produced because snow prevented workers reaching the plant, said two VW employees who wished to remain anonymous.
A source familiar with the plans of the Volkswagen supervisory board which makes decisions on product placement said that the board has not yet made a decision on the issue, and that it will take it up in a meeting on February 22.
Corker on Tuesday returned from Washington to hold a Tuesday press conference at his downtown Chattanooga senate office in order to speak against the UAW in time for the worker vote at the plant.
(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
Article from Eagle Tribune
February 12, 2014
People are showing support for N.H. minimum wage increase
By John Toolejtoole@eagletribune.com
Opposition to establishing New Hampshire’s minimum wage at $8.25 appeared minimal outside the Statehouse yesterday.
New Hampshire now follows the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, the lowest in New England. Read More...
11:42 a.m.: Anita Mendes, a worker who lives in southwestern New Hampshire, shared an emotional story with the committee about the hardships she’s faced from working for minimum wage.
Mendes told the committee she is well-educated, with a master’s in social work from the University of Connecticut, and that she worked as a community organizer and advocate for domestic violence for years. But for the past four years, she has worked in the nonprofit sector for minimum wage at 18 hours per week. She now relies on her mother, who is more than 90 years old, and her two children for support.
She told the committee she sews her own clothes because she can’t afford to buy new ones and keeps her house at 62 degrees when she is home. She frequents community dinners in her area and helps set up and clean up afterwards. If the minimum wage went up to $9 an hour, it would greatly lessen these burdens, she said.
“I would feel more valued as a worker, it would ease a lot of stress.”
“So you can see where that does not leave a household making minimum wage sufficient income to afford not only rent but other necessities,” she said.11:22 a.m.: Laurel Redden of Housing Action NH told the committee that people making minimum wage are not making enough to afford reasonable housing in New Hampshire. The definition of “affordability” is for 30 percent of a person’s income to go toward housing, leaving enough left over for food and other necessities. By that definition, someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage has $400 a month to spend on housing, yet the median gross rent in the state for a 2-bedroom apartment is $1,018 a month, Redden said.
Organizations like Housing Action work give people subsidies and vouchers and other means of help to afford housing, but businesses need to contribute, too, Redden said.
“We need not only government, but businesses to come to the table and we need individuals to come to the table to work as hard as they can,” she said.
11:12 a.m.: Gail Kinney, pastor of the South Danbury Christian Church, asked the committee to think about friends and fellow community members who make $7.25 an hour. To make her point, she shared an email from a member of her church. The email asked whether anyone who opposes a raise of the state’s minimum wage has ever scrounged around the car to find enough change to buy gas and whether they’ve had to choose between food and heating their homes.
“I wish there was a way for the nay voters to spend a week with the families who are suffering,” Kinney read from that email.
11:01 a.m.: Curtis Barry, a lobbyist for the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire, told the committee raising the minimum wage would hurt small businesses for several reasons.
First, he said, it would create wage pressure for all employees, not just those making minimum wage. As the wage for the lowest level employees increases, other employees will also seek an increase in their wages, he said. Furthermore, the higher an employer’s payroll costs, the more they pay in various taxes, he said.
“They say ‘We will do more with less, I’ll work more myself,’” Barry said.Members of the association consistently said a raise in the minimum wage would result in hiring fewer employees or giving the employees they do have fewer owners, because those business owners will want to keep consistent profits, Barry said.
10:54 a.m.: Caitlin Rollo, political and research director of Granite State Progress, which supports the bill, shared the following statistics with the committee:
Seventy-two percent of New Hampshire workers making minimum wage are over the age of 20 and 36 percent are over the age of 30, she said. In total, 59 percent are women and 14 percent are parents, she said.
10:52 a.m.: Kevin Sullivan, a former state representative and chairman of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, asked the committee to not raise the wage for tipped employees, such as waiters and waitresses. The bill would have tipped employees receiving a base wage of 45 percent of the minimum wage. He proposed freezing the tip wage at $3.25 per hour.
Sullivan, who owns Liberty Line Catering, said waiters and waitresses already receive cost of living adjustments, because their tips go up as food prices, and therefore restaurant bills, go up. Tipped employees get an average increase of 3 to 5 percent per year, he said.
“Most tipped employees are making in the range of $15 to $20 an hour,” he said.
10:37 a.m.: The House Labor Committee has opened a public hearing on a bill to raise the state’s minimum wage. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Sally Kelly, a Chichester Democrat, would raise the minimum wage to $8.25 an hour in 2015 then to $9 an hour in 2016. After that, the wage would increase based on the consumer price index. New Hampshire is one of six states without a state minimum wage, meaning it uses the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Kelly told the committee about a woman she met this weekend who is a single mom raising a 16-year-old son. That woman works at a large retail chain in Concord, where she makes $7.25 an hour, Kelly said.
“This will make a difference in her life,” Kelly said. An increase in this woman’s wage could help her pay a local landlord to rent an apartment and spend money on food and other things in local stores.
“When people increase their wages, the money goes back to our businesses in New Hampshire,” Kelly said.
State legislatures must act this year or possibly lose their share of $100 million from the federal government to create "work-sharing" programs, which allow employers to reduce workers' hours rather than resort to layoffs.
Work-share programs have existed since the 1980s, but the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 marked the first time the federal government offered states grant money to help set up such programs and to pay for benefits.
"It's a phenomenal program that should be available in every state," Gay M. Gilbert, administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Unemployment Insurance Employment and Training Administration, said during a recent conference on work-sharing programs.
Of the 26 states and the District of Columbia that have created work-share programs, 18 conform to the 2012 legislation and thus are eligible for federal grants, but are still working through the formal approval process at the Labor Department. The grants range from $11.6 million in California to $202,000 in Vermont (see map). The Department of Labor declined to identify the 18 states, as conversations with the remaining states are ongoing. As of today, no state has yet received any of the $100 million.
States face a Dec. 31 deadline to get their application to the Department of Labor to be able to collect their allotment of the $100 million. "It's an unprecedented amount of money," Gilbert said.
More than 501,000 layoffs were averted and jobs saved since 2008 through work-share programs, according to the Labor Department. All told, some 8.8 million jobswere lost during the 2007-2009 recessions.
DIFFERS FROM JOB SHARING
Work-share programs differ from job sharing. The latter allows two part-time employees to share one full-time job. Work sharing allows a full-time worker's hours to be reduced, in lieu of being laid off. It also enables businesses to retain skilled workers, even if just part-time.
Work-sharing is voluntary, so employees can choose whether to participate if their companies offer it.
The program is technically "short-time compensation" since workers who agree to have their hours cut collect a portion of their lost wages though the unemployment insurance program. The $100 million set aside for states is to help set up and promote the programs. It is separate from the program that reimburses states for the benefits.
"Instead of getting a pink slip during an economic downturn, workers now have an opportunity to stay on the job and receive unemployment benefits for the hours they lose," Republican Gov. Scott Walker said when Wisconsin approved work-share legislation last year.
Another provision of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allows states to get reimbursed 100% for the benefits that are paid through their work-share programs through 2015. More than $173 million in federal money has gone to 20 states to pay for benefits since October 2012.
Republican and Democratic controlled states have recently created work-share programs, including Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania since 2010, according to the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy organization that supports work-share.
CRITICS WORRY ABOUT UI FUND
The program may have won bipartisan support, but it still has its critics. In Indiana, for example, some policymakers have raised concerns that a work-share program could drain the unemployment insurance trust fund, even though the federal government has offered to pay for the benefits for up to three years. During the recession, many states' unemployment insurance funds ran out of money, and states had to borrow billions of dollars from the federal government to cover jobless benefits.
The conservative Heritage Foundation has said "European work-sharing programs have done nothing to increase employment" and won't work in the United States.
But Derek Thomas, a senior policy analyst with the Indiana Institute for Working Families, said he is "extremely disappointed" his state has not enacted work-share legislation. His group has researched and lobbied on the issue for three years, calling the program "our nation's most effective job destruction prevention program." Indiana's jobless rate is 6.9%.
Organized labor largely supports work-sharing as long as the state laws include a requirement that employers get the union's approval before launching such a program, if workers are represented by labor. All but three states include this union sign-off. The three states that do not are Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
KUDOS FROM EMPLOYERS
Rhode Island, which has the country's highest unemployment rate at 9.1%, figures its work-share program saved nearly 14,000 jobs between 2007 and 2010, a period when the state lost 36,600 jobs.
"Imagine if those 14,000 jobs went away and we were approaching more than 50,000 jobs lost," said Charles J. Fogarty, director of the state's Labor and TrainingDepartment. "That would have had a devastating impact" on the state's economy. Without the program, he said the state's unemployment rate in 2010 would have reached 12.2%, rather than 11.7%.
In Oregon, ESCO Corp. last year contemplated laying off some of its 1,000 workers in Portland when global demand for mining equipment decreased. Instead, thecompany said the state's work-share program allowed them to reduce some workers' hours instead of eliminating any jobs.
"We make some products that are not made anywhere else in the world," said Teresa Hogan, the human resource manager at ESCO. "Retaining that talent is really important … Work-share is a perfect way to do that."
Mark Soycher, an attorney with the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, calls work-sharing "a poorly publicized program but very well-received once companies learned about it." He said the state's labor department has acted cooperatively with firms and responds quickly on the paperwork.
Lisa Maxim, a human resources manager at Oregon Aero Inc., a small company in Scappoose, Ore., that makes headsets, helmets and cushions for military pilots, said the turnaround time for getting the paperwork back from the Oregon Labor Department is typically 48 hours. "It's so easy to use. You check off a couple boxes" on a one-page form and scan it to the labor department. "The lack of red tape is reassuring for everyone."
Maxim said her company used the program when the federal sequestration hit her company. "Oregon Aero hasn't laid off a single person during our difficult economic downturn."
Once employers understand how it works, "the program sells itself," said Neil Gorrell, unemployment insurance director in Washington state. Work-share is not just for bigger employers. In his state, for example, 37% of the firms using work-share have 10 employees or fewer, Gorrell said.
STATES FACE RED TAPE
As states work to minimize the amount of forms employers have to file to participate in work-share, they face their own federal red tape to get programs approved.
"There is a lot of paperwork involved," said Gorrell of Washington state's UI program. He said his staff has responded to at least four rounds of follow up questions and requests for more detailed information from the federal government.
"Our program is one of the oldest and best run," he said. "I would speculate that the effort required to get a less established program and grant approved would be a significant reason there aren't more approvals out there."
At the same time, Gorrell said he recognizes the federal government's position. "While it has consumed a great deal of staff time, with the scarcity of funds available in the system, I do understand why (the U.S. Department of Labor) is being so careful."
Law’s Expanded Medicaid Coverage Brings a Surge in Sign-Ups
WELCH, W.Va. — Sharon Mills, a disabled nurse, long depended on other people’s kindness to manage her diabetes. She scrounged free samples from doctors’ offices, signed up for drug company discounts and asked for money from her parents and friends. Her church often helped, but last month used its charitable funds to help repair other members’ furnaces.
Ms. Mills, 54, who suffered renal failure last year after having irregular access to medication, said her dependence on others left her feeling helpless and depressed. “I got to the point when I decided I just didn’t want to be here anymore,” she said.
So when a blue slip of paper arrived in the mail this month with a new Medicaid number on it — part of the expanded coverage offered under the Affordable Care Act — Ms. Mills said she felt as if she could breathe again for the first time in years. “The heavy thing that was pressing on me is gone,” she said.
As health care coverage under the new law sputters to life, it is already having a profound effect on the lives of poor Americans. Enrollment in private insurance plans has been sluggish, but sign-ups for Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the poor, have surged in many states. Here in West Virginia, which has some of the shortest life spans and highest poverty rates in the country, the strength of the demand has surprised officials, with more than 75,000 people enrolling in Medicaid.
While many people who have signed up so far for private insurance through the new insurance exchanges had some kind of health care coverage before, recent studies have found, most of the people getting coverage under the Medicaid expansion were previously uninsured. In West Virginia, where the Democratic governor agreed to expand Medicaid eligibility, the number of uninsured people in the state has been reduced by about a third.
America ranks near the bottom of developed countries in health and longevity, and many public health experts believe that improving that ranking will be impossible without paying more attention to poor Americans. It is still an open question whether access to health insurance will improve the health of the disadvantaged in the long run, experts say, but the men and women getting the coverage here say the mere fact of having it has drastically improved their mental health.
Waitresses, fast food workers, security guards and cleaners described feeling intense relief that they are now protected from the punishing medical bills that have punched holes in their family budgets. They spoke in interviews of reclaiming the dignity they had lost over years of being turned away from doctors’ offices because they did not have insurance.
“You see it in their faces,” said Janie Hovatter, a patient advocate at Cabin Creek Health Systems, a health clinic in southern West Virginia. “They just kind of relax.”
Still, even among those who most need insurance, there has been resistance to signing up. President Obama — often blamed here in coal country for the industry’s decline — remains deeply unpopular. Recruiters trying to persuade people to enroll say they sometimes feel like drug peddlers. The people they approach often talk in hushed tones out of earshot of others.
Chad Webb, a shy 30-year-old who is enrolling people in Mingo County, said a woman at a recent event used biblical terms to disparage Mr. Obama as an existential threat to the nation. Mr. Webb said he thought to himself: “This man is not the Antichrist. He just wants you to have health insurance.”
Eventually, though, people’s desperate need for insurance seems to be overcoming their distaste for the president. Rachelle Williams, 25, an uninsured McDonald’s worker from Mingo County, said she had refused to fill out insurance forms on a recent trip to the emergency room for a painful bout of kidney stones. “I wouldn’t do it,” she said. But when she got a letter in the mail saying she qualified for Medicaid, she signed up immediately.
Uninsured people tend to be sicker and to die younger than those with insurance, and experts have reasoned that coverage should give poor Americans a better chance to improve their health. But an influential study found that lack of access to medical care accounts for just 10 percent of premature deaths in the country, compared with the 40 percent from behavioral factors like smoking and eating unhealthful food. The rest is linked to genetics, and social and environmental factors.
A widely cited experiment in Oregon offered an early look at what happens when people suddenly get Medicaid coverage. Researchers found that physical health, like obesity and the prevalence of diabetes, did not change much. But mental health improved drastically, with instances of depression plummeting. Ms. Mills said the simple relief of having coverage had helped drive away her suicidal thoughts.
Welch is a tiny town in McDowell County, a remote patch of mountains dotted by coal mines and forests logged for timber. Life expectancy here for men is just 64 years — the lowest in the country, and even lower than in Pakistan. Rates of smoking and diabetes here are nearly double the national average, and almost half the men are obese.
In communities like these, people often eat the cheapest, most convenient, food at hand.
“Poverty is short-term thinking — what can I do today to survive,” said Sister Janet Peterworth, a charity worker in Mingo County who is enrolling people.
Lavetta Hutchinson, a nurse in McDowell County, is pessimistic about the law’s potential to improve health in the area. Lack of economic opportunity, low levels of education and the resulting despair have driven a raging drug epidemic and created a kind of fatalism.
“People think they are going to live as long as they are going to live, and there’s nothing they can do to change it,” she said. “They don’t see the value of prevention.”
It remains to be seen how Medicaid coverage will work once millions more people across the country are in the system. Low reimbursement rates discourage specialists from taking Medicaid patients.
But Gina Justice, a social worker with the Mingo County Diabetes Coalition, said many of her patients have to choose now between medicine and food, so access to critical medications through new coverage will be a lifeline.
“People tell us, ‘This is the food month,’ ” Ms. Justice said. “If you can take away that stress because now you’ve got a medical card, then you can focus on healthier eating that will help with these medical issues.”
And there is a high price for being uninsured, she said.
One patient, a coal truck driver in his 30s with diabetes, came in for treatment whenever he was insured, which was not often. Last summer, he had a stroke after a stretch when he had no coverage; he now walks with a cane and cannot drive. Another patient, a woman with diabetes, is now legally blind because she could not find an endocrinologist who would treat her, or a lab that would run tests, without insurance, Ms. Justice said.
Ms. Mills had to stop work at a hospital after badly injuring her back lifting a patient. She has struggled to buy her medications for Type 1 diabetes, and survives on about $12,000 a year from the hospital system where she worked. That is just above the official poverty line of $11,490 a year for a single person, and far above the old income limit for Medicaid eligibility, which was a third of poverty, or about $4,000 a year. (Only parents with dependent children were eligible; the new limit is 133 percent of poverty, or about $15,200 for an individual.) She is unable to work and lives in a small house with metal siding.
When she has had catastrophic events, like the renal failure last year, the state has temporarily put her on Medicaid, but Ms. Mills estimates that she has been insured for only a little over two of the last 12 years. She said permanent eligibility for Medicaid was a godsend.
“It’s going to change her life,” said Ms. Hutchinson, the nurse, who occasionally treats her.
Last week, Ms. Mills used her Medicaid number for the first time to fill a prescription. It was a Wednesday, and she walked into Walmart feeling good.
“Now I’ve got insurance,” she said, “and I’m waving that piece of paper all over the place.”
Others, she said, seemed to have the same idea, judging by the line at the pharmacy. “It was plumb over to the pet department!”
CONCORD — New Hampshire labor leaders urged lawmakers to reestablish a minimum wage requirement and to raise it as they unveiled priorities for the coming year.
Increasing the minimum wage is one of a number of bills labor groups said they will support to improve the lives of workers and their families.
“This year we are calling on our Legislature to lift up working families and lift up New Hampshire,” said Mark MacKenzie, state AFL-CIO president.
He said increasing the minimum wage is the most important item as it sends a “strong message we are not going to allow people to live below the poverty level in this state.”
He said increasing the minimum wage is money that will go right back into the economy through rent, utilities, food and other essentials.
But opponents of the increase say it might be a short-term boost in the economy, but in the long-term will cost jobs and drive up inflation.
The bill backed by the labor groups would increase the minimum raise from $7.25 to $9 an hour.
Bruce Berke, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said raising the wage to $9 an hour is a 24 percent increase.
“Who is getting a 24 percent increase this year?” Berke asked. “Is a business going to charge 24 percent more for its widgets or for a meal?”
The longer term impacts have negative repercussions on the economic climate, he said.
“Let the market decide. There are so many other pressures on businesses that are mandated,” Berke said. “If it’s this today, what will be tomorrow, longer family leave or larger sick leave policies? It just never ends.”
But national AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler, said the plight of low-wage workers is in the spotlight like never before with walkouts at Wal-Mart and strikes by fast-food workers.
“Work in this country should be valued, rewarded and respected,” Shuler said. “It is not a question of whether we can afford to reward hard work — we can’t afford not to. Income inequality is greater today than it’s been since the Great Depression.”
Lawmakers abolished the state’s minimum wage law in 2011, but state law holds that no employee shall be paid at an hourly rate lower than the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.
Last year, lawmakers attempted to reestablish the state minimum wage and to increase it, but those bills were either killed or sent back to committees. However, several similar bills will be introduced this session.
New Hampshire established a state minimum wage in 1949. In 2011, when the Republican-controlled Legislature removed the minimum wage from the books, then-Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, vetoed it. He said the repeal would “undermine our state’s economic strategy.”
The veto was overridden by the House and Senate, making New Hampshire one of 19 states where the “minimum wage” is the same as the federal rate.
MacKenzie said labor groups would also support a bill promoting equal pay and removing provisions forbidding employees from disclosing their wages, and another that better defines working conditions for temporary employees.
The groups will also back bills forbidding employers from basing hiring decisions on a person’s credit history or requiring employees to turn over passwords to their private social media sites.
Also on labor’s agenda are bills to limit fees charged to worker paid with payroll cards, to establish a state prevailing wage law for state-funded capital projects, and a bill requiring contractors on state projects to file certified payroll reports to include workers classifications and rates of pay.
By Mark MacKenzie and Richard Trumka
November 27, 2013 2:00 AM
Last month, we saw Washington at its worst. Driven by the tea party,
Republican leaders, including Sen. Kelly Ayotte, recklessly shut down our
government and brought our nation to the brink of default. Read More...
Extended Unemployment Benefits On Track To Expire Dec. 28
By MARILYN GEEWAX
Credit Frederic J. Brown / AFP/Getty Images
A prospective job seeker gets information at a job resource fair for military veterans in Van Nuys, Calif., on Oct. 24. Read More...
Labor Unions May Get Health Law Tax Relief
TOPICS: INSURANCE, MARKETPLACE, POLITICS, HEALTH REFORM
By Jay Hancock
KHN Staff Writer
NOV 06, 2013
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/November/06/labor-unions-health-insurance-reinsurance-tax. Read More...
New Labor Secretary
WASHINGTON (AP) - With Thomas Perez now confirmed as head of the Labor Department, the agency is expected to unleash a flurry of new regulations that have been bottled up for months - a prospect that has business leaders worried and labor advocates cheering. Read More...