A STRIKINGLY UNFAIR SITUATION

There have been a lot of concerns expressed to stewards about the intricacies of a potential strike. I understand the concerns, fears, and general insecurities about withholding one's services for a principle one feels strongly about. I hope to address all concerns in the near future, but in order to understand and truly have your concerns addressed, the bigger picture must be understood.


For many, their job is their livelihood. Whether it be for financial reasons, or pure job satisfaction, many Americans define themselves by their work and spend more time and energy for work than home life. Partly because of the current economic crisis and partly because of the economic system, we've become workers before anything else. Americans are the world's most productive.

Regardless of your political thoughts and feelings, to truly grasp the complexities of what's currently happening, you must pay attention to politics and analyze how these decisions and laws being made directly affect you.  Gone are the days of when politics could be dismissed as irrelevant.

I want to preface the following explanation with the thought of WHY this information was not publicly broadcasted or widely distributed.  Because we do NOT want to strike.  Plain and simple.  Resources were utilized in mobilization to prevent any need for rumblings of a strike.  You don't spend months planning for a strike, or it will happen.  You prepare for good-faith negotiations and educate your members and the public.

From the SEIU, local 668 Constitution, Article V(Membership Obligations), Section 5:

"All members shall participate in and/or assist in a duly called strike or other work action called for by their bargaining unit in accordance with this and/or the International Constitution."

On the surface, this obligation may appear to leave you no choice.  That is not the case.  What must be considered is the actions preceding this point of the negotiating process.  This can be found in the SEIU668 Constitution in Article XVI (Strikes).

Sections of importance in this article are:

"Section 1: In order to initiate a strike action against an Employer, a plurality vote is required from the membership of the affected bargaining unit.  The plurality is determined from those voting.  The vote shall be held by secret ballot at the shop level, at mass meetings held at convenient locations, or by direct member mailings.  The results of such a vote shall be binding on the Negotiating Committee.  The Negotiating Committee may be voted the right to call a strike or take other action at their discretion."   

"Section 4: All actions and/or sanctions pertaining to strike violations shall be set by the Statewide Executive Board and implemented by the Secretary-Treasurer.  The Statewide Executive Board must announce and make public sanctions and/or fines at least five (5) working days prior to expiration of the contract."

 Section 1 explains the requirement of "the vote" we've all heard about.  Keeping in mind the mission of the Negotiating Committee is to get the best possible proposal for the membership, the vote will only occur if the Commonwealth gives a final offer.  Meaning they are no longer willing to negotiate with the Union.  It's important to note that the Commonwealth would be the initiating-power behind any strike.  Good-faith negotiations can legally continue after the current contract expires and would result in the extension of the current contract until an agreement is made.


Section 4 explains the announcement requirements for any strike-related sanctions and/or fines.  In short, I would not expect any specific direction in terms of strike procedures until then.  Because, again, striking is not the goal of the negotiations.


If the members of the Negotiating Team exhaust their resources and the final offer is made by the Commonwealth, the vote to accept the final offer will be held.  It's important to keep in mind when voting that the vote is not 'yes' or 'no' to strike or not; it's whether to accept the contract offer.  The strike, or more practically the threat of one, is a negotiating tactic.  A 'no' vote does not definitely mean a strike will occur on a specific date.  It only validates the membership's commitment to do so.


A potential strike is much more effective than an actual strike.  It also causes less stress in an extremely stressful situation.  It is absolutely crucial that you spend time and think and discuss your personal circumstances before deciding which way to vote.  I believe that Unions allow for democracy in the workplace.  Under no circumstances should one vote for reasons they do not personally support.  The core negotiating leverage we have is our numbers--the membership.


Solidarity unfortunately has become a slogan-term over the years.  But when you honestly put aside all personal prejudices and beliefs, the power that comes from having close to 9,000 individuals be able to speak for one cause cannot be dismissed.  It is undoubtedly more effective and beneficial than an individual negotiating their pay, benefits, safety, non-discrimination, law-compliance, personal health, etc.

That being said, it is imperative that if you vote NO to the final contract offer, you be prepared to strike.  I understand the myriad of excuses and legitimate reasons why someone would not want to strike and also the other reasons why someone simply could not.  If you have come to these or similar conclusions when it comes time to vote, your vote should be 'yes'-- you accept the terms of the proposal.


There's no room for moral votes.  These are votes that promise action.  It is counterproductive to the fundamental working structure of a union to vote one way and act another.  Essentially, if you vote 'no' and cross the picket-line, your vote should have been 'yes.'  It has nothing to do with personal feelings; it's the anonymous mathematical truths.

For example, out of 9000 individual votes 7000 votes are 'no.'  As stated earlier, this vote does not imminently result in a strike.  At this point, it gives the Negotiating Team the leverage of 7,000 workers striking and causing operations to stop.  That alone could soften the Commonwealth's position on certain terms of the contract.


The Commonwealth would then either accept or reject our proposal.  If rejected and a strike occurs, the 7000 must then back up their votes with action and participate in a strike.  If not, that will leave their fellow members, who do strike, out in the cold.  While also leaving the Union with little-to-no negotiating leverage.   

If only 2000 of the 7000 strike, operations can continue, making the strike ineffective.  The 5000, in this scenario, who voted 'no'--they would not accept the terms of the contract, then accepted them, do the plurality vote process no justice; rather injustice for those properly orchestrating the system in place.


I personally have no problem either way, as long as the decision is made by voters who are informed.  If the majority of the membership wants to accept:

- 4% rollback of wages, essentially giving back something we negotiated and received in a previous contract; 
- increases in healthcare premiums, co-pays, deductibles,while at the same time allowing the Commonwealth to continue to look for cheaper insurance.
- Potentially 5 unpaid days (rolling furloughs)
- Decrease in sick days from 13 to 8 (another 5 unpaid days)
- Elimination of personal days (another 4 unpaid days)
- Forgiving the $780M debt of the loan given from healthcare fund in 09, resulting in the members having to pay it back
- Etc...


Hopefully this explanation will assist you in becoming as familiar and informed about a very important vote that will set the stage for the countdown to the next contract.  Any concessions we make in 2011 changes the status quo. In 2014, we could be making what we were making in 2010.


If we allow cutting wages and increasing healthcare costs to be easy targets, they will continually be attacked.  If the economy doesn't increase the rate of recovery dramatically, in 2014 they could be asking for another 4 percent.  Then what?

"Pennsylvania Would Fund Colleges by Sniffing Out Medicaid Fraud"

SOURCE

Pennsylvania legislators are pinning their effort to avert the steepest higher-education cuts in U.S. history on savings from reducing Medicaid waste and fraud. If the state can’t find enough, more than 160,000 needy residents may go without health care.

Republican Governor Tom Corbett had proposed halving funding for state universities and cutting primary education. Instead, the majority Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to divert $470 million from the Public Welfare Department, saying that rooting out cheating and errors will create savings.

U.S. states face 2012 shortfalls totaling $112 billion, the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in March. To cope with Pennsylvania’s forecast $4.2 billion deficit, lawmakers are assuming savings their counterparts in other states aren’t and are putting higher education ahead of social services and health care.

“The House proposal is a step backward,” Sharon Ward, director of the Harrisburg-based Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, said in a telephone call. “Cutting hospitals to restore colleges and universities -- we think it’s a lose-lose approach.” 

Republican Representative William Adolph of Springfield, head of the Appropriations Committee, said restoring aid to universities is important, because otherwise tuition would rise for about 270,000 students.

Economic Drivers

Lawmakers also say the universities drive jobs and tax revenue. Pennsylvania State University, for one, wrote paychecks for 44,000 and contributed $17 billion in direct and indirect economic activity in the state in 2008, according to a study by Pittsburgh-based Tripp Umbach & Associates, which the university hired. 

No other state is considering budget proposals counting on Medicaid savings from waste and fraud in the next fiscal year, according to Jon Shure, director of state fiscal strategies for the budget and policy center, and data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. California in fiscal 2011 incorporated a $26 million savings from antifraud efforts in its Medicaid program, according to the data. 

“That is very unlikely to materialize in Pennsylvania or anywhere else,” said Shure, whose group focuses on issues that affect lower-income Americans. “What is more likely that there would be cuts to services people need. It’s hard to imagine waste at such a level that you would find savings.” 

The Senate, also controlled by Republicans, will take up the budget bill after House passage. The Legislature must pass the spending plan before the fiscal years begins July 1. A Corbett spokesman, Kevin Harley, didn’t return a telephone call seeking comment.

Historic Cuts

If the governor’s plan were enacted, it would be the steepest one-time drop in college funding in U.S. history, according to Daniel Hurley, director of state relations and policy analysis at the Washington-based American Association of State Colleges & Universities. 

The $27.3 billion House spending plan would mean only a 15 percent drop for 14 universities owned by the state. It would result in a 25 percent cut to four universities outside the system that receive aid. 

To minimize university cuts, legislators plan to decrease funding for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, by 4 percent. They settled on the amount after the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services audit of payments in the state last year found that 4 percent of applications had errors, Adolph said.

‘Stopping the Bleeding’

“I am quite comfortable we are not slashing and burning the welfare budget,” he said. “We are stopping the bleeding of the fastest-growing line item in the state budget.” 

Groups foresee serious consequences. Hospitals would get $70 million less in state and federal payments for treating indigent patients, said Roger Baumgarten, spokesman for the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, a Harrisburg-based organization. In addition, as many as 164,300 residents could lose access to health care through Medicaid, Ward said. About 2.2 million Pennsylvanians receive assistance. 

An initiative that gives child-care subsidies to low-income parents of 130,000 children and has a waiting list of 12,000 may be jeopardized, said Joan Benso, chief executive officer at Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, an activist group in Harrisburg. 

“Our economy is slowly recovering, but kids and families still need help,” she said in a telephone interview. “We are making cuts to programs that will have a negative impact on children.”

On the Street

The bill would eliminate $27 million from an area that supports the living needs of people with intellectual disabilities, a potentially “catastrophic” event that would force a “large number of group homes” to go out of business, said Ilene Shane, chief executive officer of advocacy group Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania. About 15,500 people live in 6,000 group homes across the commonwealth. 

Acting welfare Secretary Gary Alexander said during his Senate confirmation hearing May 11 that he was sure there would be savings by finding fraud. He didn’t know how much. 

“I don’t know if it’s $400 million at this point,” he said. “It could be; it could be more; it could be a lot less.”

"Rutgers study: Paid sick days keep us healthier"

SOURCE

RUTGERS — About 1.2 million workers in New Jersey do not have paid sick days, roughly 38 percent of the private sector work force, according to Rutgers researchers.

Changing that by mandating paid days off for ill workers would be a windfall for the health of people in the state, according to The Center for Women and Work at Rutgers, which highlighted the benefits in a report released Thursday.

“People without paid sick days are more likely to send a sick child to school than workers that do have paid sick days,” said Karen White, director of the work and family programs at the center. “As a result, the public’s health is at risk.”

Guaranteeing paid sick days would reduce the spread of seasonal flu and pandemics and bring a host of other health improvements, she said.

But a New Jersey business leader panned the idea, saying the cost would cripple vulnerable business owners.

“I think it would have a tremendously negative effect, especially on small employers. They can’t afford it and they don’t have the people to replace people with substantial duties,” said Phil Kirschner, president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “And the timing couldn’t be worse.”

Kirschner said not having to offer paid sick days does not mean small businesses do not make accommodations for sick workers.

Guaranteeing paid sick days would lower health care costs, according to Jonathan Heller, Human Impact Partners, which took part in the study. The measure would reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room visits, he said.

According to Heller, 76 percent of food workers do not have paid sick days and half of food-borne disease outbreaks occur in restaurants.

Business associations in other parts of the country have opposed legislation mandating paid sick days. One business advocate in Washington D.C., likened one proposal to a 3 percent tax on businesses there.

But Robert Drago of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which also took part in the study, said businesses in San Franscisco, which mandated paid sick days several years ago, pass the costs on to employees by making them pick up the slack for ill co-workers.

Drago said only 14 percent of San Francisco business owners reported an adverse effect on profits.

No proposal is currently before the New Jersey Legislature.

But the federal Healthy Families Act legislation was reintroduced in both the House and Senate on May 12. It would require businesses with 15 or more employees to provide workers with up to seven days of paid sick leave.

According to the Rutgers report, 42 percent of employed adults without paid sick leave go to work when sick compared with 28 percent of those with that benefit.

Pressure on people to work sick remains high. One in six workers in the United States reported that they or a family member has been fired, suspended, punished or threatened by an employer due to needing to time off for an illness, according to the report.

"New Jersey governor's school budget ruled unconstitutional"

SOURCE

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that $500 million must be restored to the state's poorest school districts after it found part of Gov. Chris Christie's controversial 2011 budget to be unconstitutional.

"Today's ruling by the state Supreme Court is disappointing, but not unexpected," Christie responded in a press conference. "There are several reasons why I believe this decision represents everything wrong with how Trenton has historically operated and everything that I'm here fighting to change."

According to court documents, Christie's budget fails to meet the funding requirements set forth by the School Funding Reform Act of 2008, a spending formula that guarantees financial support for all New Jersey public school districts.

Particularly problematic to the court was his failure to fund the so-called Abbott school districts, 31 New Jersey districts located in poor communities that are constitutionally guaranteed adequate funding levels because of historically bad performance records.

"Like anyone else, the State is not free to walk away from judicial orders enforcing constitutional obligations," the court opinion stated Tuesday. "We can grant relief in litigants' rights only to the plaintiff class of children from Abbott districts for whom we have a historical finding of constitutional violation and for whom we had specific remedial orders in place," the documents said.

Christie argued that "the court's decision is based on a failed legal and educational theory that incorrectly reasons the key to establishing a thorough and efficient system of education is to throw more money at failing schools," Christie.

Trenton Superintendent Ray Broach, whose Abbott district school faced $12 million in cuts this year alone, said if the state Supreme Court's ruling had been different, "it could have been devastating."

"It was very important for me and Trenton," Broach added.

Christie acknowledged Tuesday that despite his differences with the ruling, he will comply, and $500 million will go to New Jersey's Abbott school districts.

However, others are pushing for further reform.

"He (Christie) has got to step up to the plate now and show that he's the governor for kids all across the state," said David Sciarra of the Education Law Center. "His job isn't done here."

"We want to fund all 205 school districts," state Senate President Stephen Sweeney told CNN, adding that he already is looking to other areas of the budget to shift toward education.

But the governor already has declared himself removed from the process of deciding what money goes where.

"The constitutional ball is now in the legislature's court," Christie said during his response to the ruling. "It's now up to the legislature to decide how that gets done and then send it to me for my consideration."

According to the state constitution, the budget must be final by June 30.

"Wisconsin: Walker's union-busting bill struck down; violated open meetings law"

AP:

A Wisconsin judge has struck down a law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most state workers.


Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled Thursday that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law during the run up to passage. She says that renders the law void.

 The issue here is that to pass Scott Walker's bill, the Wisconsin state legislature held a stealthy committee meeting without giving the legally-required 24 hours notice. The aim of the meeting was to catch opponents of the legislation unprepared, violating both the letter and spirit of the state's open meetings law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear arguments on June 6 to decide whether it will take up the case. You can read the today's decision here.

Daily Kos

State Contract Update- May 25, 2011

SOURCE

The SEIU State Contract Negotiation Team met with the commonwealth for the second time today, Wednesday, May 25, 2011.

The commonwealth presented an hour long PowerPoint on the economic climate in Pennsylvania and nationwide.  The presentation outlined the state’s recession and the unpredictability of the economic rebound.

SEIU 668 negotiation team members gave two presentations:

1.       Eugene Quaglia, Income Maintenance Caseworker and County Assistance Office (CAO) Committee Chair, gave a presentation on how the economic crisis has affected the CAO and the cost savings proposal

2.       Brendan Tedrick, Blind and Visual Services Representative, and Jeff Seabury, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) Committee Chair, did a presentation on portal to portal.

Each side was given the opportunity to ask questions about the proposals. However, there was no substantial movement from either side on the proposals.

SEIU 668 proposals will be posted forthcoming.                                                 

Please remember, it is more important than ever that we stand in solidarity. This solidarity requires all members, including non-commonwealth employees, to participate in breakouts, show the PURPLE POWER and vigorously enforce current contracts. Additionally, we need to continue to reach out to our legislators to pass a responsible state budget that includes recurring revenue, as the state budget is directly linked to the outcome of the state contract.

Remember, knowledge is power. Stay informed about the state contract and budget negotiations by checking the state hotline, frequently checking the Website (www.seiu668.org) and the Facebook page (www.facebook.com/seiu668.org). A state budget FAQ will be posted on the Website shortly.

The next negotiations date will be Friday, May 27, 2011. Remember to wear purple!

If you have questions or concerns about the proposals, the process or anything else please contact a member of the Negotiating Team or email local668@seiu668.org.

"The Right to Management Competence"

SOURCE

Imagine that you're conducting a performance appraisal with one of your people. You're discussing a major project that didn't turn out as hoped and you've just asked him why.

"Why did it fail?" he says. "Lots of reasons, but mostly because we didn't get what we needed from you. We were depending on other groups, but they couldn't have cared less. In fact, they didn't even know what we were doing and how it would help them. Plus, we never had a real strategy or plan and so we pretty much winged it every day, and every day you seemed to change your mind about what was important. In fact, Jack (your boss) never understood the project. So when people asked him, he couldn't support us."

What would your reaction be? We suspect a part of you would be thinking: "He can't say this. This is insubordination. I'm evaluating him. This isn't how it works."

And you'd be right. This isn't how it usually works. In virtually all organizations we know, the right to have formal expectations of others flows only downward, just like formal authority. 

Notice we said "the right to have expectations." People certainly have expectations of those above them in the hierarchy, but there's little if any recognition of those expectations. Certainly there's no recognition of the right to have them. 

We suggest that point of view should be questioned. We certainly don't think every expectation people have of a boss is appropriate. Many are naive, self-serving, and dysfunctional for the group. But there is one right we believe needs recognition by bosses, organizations, and all the people in them:

People have a right to competent management.
 
This is not a new idea. Even in Roman times it was said that every soldier had a right to competent command. In the same way, your people can and should expect you to be an able boss. They should expect this in the same way and for the same reason they can expect to receive the minimal tools and resources needed to do the work assigned to them. And they should be allowed to discuss these expectations with you, their boss, just as you and they discuss your expectations of them.

"That's fine, in theory," you're probably thinking. "But who knows what 'competent' management is? Look at the millions of words written about the subject."

Certainly there's room for ongoing negotiation, especially around how the requirements of good management apply in a given situation. But that's little different from your own expectations of your people. You know the general elements of what's required of each; how those elements apply to specifics is open to ongoing discussion.

What good management comprises — what bosses do to make their people productive — isn't really a mystery. We can argue about the exact wording, but the basic elements aren't in doubt. We've summarized them in what we call the "3 Imperatives": Manage yourself, manage your network, manage your team. In writing about these elements, we've described them in terms of what good managers do and what all managers should strive to do. But it's not hard to rephrase them from a direct report's point of view — in effect, a "Direct Reports' Bill of Rights" — as follows.
Every direct report should be able to expect that the boss will:

• Be Trustworthy. Trust is based on competence and character, and so people can expect the boss (a) will know what to do and how to do it, and (b) will possess fundamental values, standards, interpersonal skills, emotional maturity, and levels of caring that support the work and those doing it. 
• Exercise influence beyond his or her group. Every group works in a web of interdependence within a broader organization and beyond. Success — through, for example, securing needed resources, attention, and cooperation — depends on the boss's ability to exercise influence in that broader context through a network of ongoing, mutually supportive relationships.
• Create a team of his or her group. A group is a collection of people who work together. A team is a group whose members are mutually committed to pursuit of a clear purpose and the achievement of goals based on that purpose. In a team there is a "we" separate from the individuals involved and the people in that "we" believe they will all succeed or fail together. Why is this important? Because members of a team are more engaged and committed and as a group are more innovative and productive. A competent manager knows how to transform a group into a team — by fostering a compelling purpose, worthwhile goals and clear plans, productive work processes, and a culture of "we."
• Recognize individuals and support their development. People want to belong and be recognized for themselves. Thus, an effective manager knows individual team members, works with them, supports their development, and recognizes their contributions — all within the context of the team.

How would you fare in the eyes of your people if they applied these standards? What if your organization told everyone that this is what all employees should expect of their managers? What if, in your performance reviews with your people, you discussed with them your own performance in terms of the expectations above?

"Union helped hotel worker stand up to IMF chief"

SOURCE

Several articles in the major media are discussing the high risk of sexual assault that housekeepers face in hotels. Sexual assault and harassment is rampant, maids are afraid to complain to management because of fear of losing their jobs and perpetrators think there is little chance they'll get caught.

Dominique-Strauss Kahn, former chief of the International Monetary Fund, wasn't so lucky, however, because he picked the wrong place to prey on a worker - a union hotel in New York.

"After he was arrested there was a lot of self-congratulatory praise and back slapping for how well this was handled in the United States, as opposed to how it might have been handled in some European countries, including France," said Tula Connell, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO. (A number of articles on the case claim matters involving sexual predation are more routinely swept under the rug in European countries.)

"But speaking out publicly against so powerful a world figure from the vantage of a hotel-maid required guts and, in addition, it required a union."

Connell cited an article by Adele Stan, an independent journalist, that said, "By any measure it was risky. There's a reason most rapes go unreported. But there was one thing that the housekeeper knew could not be done to her for reporting her account, she could not be fired because of her membership in a union, the New York Hotel Trades Council."

In a statement issued by the labor-backed Center for Economic Policy and Research, their director Dean Baker said, "In this particular case, the housekeeper belonged to a union that has provisions in its contract that require the management to take cases of sexual assault seriously. This meant the housekeeper knew that she could make a complaint to management and not worry about being ridiculed or putting her job at risk."

In an editorial on its website  , the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council said "New York is the wrong place to prey on hotel workers. It has the highest proportion of unionization in the hotel industry, 75 percent."

Most workers in the hospitality industry are non-union and have few rights. They can be disciplined or fired without cause at any time. Those who are undocumented live almost entirely without any protection from the law.

The union says that management philosophy in the luxury service business expects workers to behave with extreme civility toward customers, who are called "guests." The "customer is always right" philosophy holds sway, the union says.

A maid from Mexico working at a luxury hotel in Scottsdale, Arizona ran into problems on May 22 when she knocked on a customer's door for the nightly turndown service.

The customer, an older man with gray hair, was alone when she opened the door.

"Would you like me to turn down your sheets?" the maid asked.

When the customer declined, the maid offered some chocolates.

"That would be perfect," the man said.

But before the maid could hand him the candies, he opened his zipper and exposed himself.

"I handed him the candies and quickly left," said Imma, 45, a resident of Phoenix to a reporter from the Arizona Republic.

Hotel maids, the vast majority of them immigrant women, face sexual harassment on a regular basis, said Annemarie Stassel, a spokesman for Unite Here which represents more than 100,000 housekeepers nationally. "We know these things happen and that is why whenever workers choose union representation we make sure there are strong clauses in the contract to protect against assault and harassment."

Stassel said the most common incidents are men answering the door naked, and workers being asked for sex, with or without pay.

In union hotels, the procedure instructs women cleaning rooms to leave the room doors open and use their cleaning carts to block the doorway. They remain vulnerable, however, because they work alone and when inside a room they are out of view of security cameras.

Since the Strauss-Kahn arrest, many are speaking out more to one another, according to Arelia Valdiva, an organizer with Unite Here, Local 11 in Los Angeles.

She said that this week a maid told her that while she was cleaning a bathroom, the customer returned intoxicated and said something was wrong with the TV. When she entered the room she saw that the TV was working and that the customer was watching a pornographic movie.

Stassel said maids often don't report sexual harassment because "it happens so often."

"Union contracts are important," she said, "because they empower workers to speak up and demand justice."

"Pa. House Approves $27.3 Billion Budget"

SOURCE

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted 109-92 to approve a state budget that sets spending at $27.3 billion for the 2011-12 fiscal year — the same amount proposed in Governor Tom Corbett's March budget plan.

The budget cuts $1 billion from public schools and reduces Governor Corbett's budget by $471 million for health and human services for women, children and people with disabilities. It fails to enact a drilling tax on natural gas and leaves untouched a $500 million state revenue surplus.

The budget bill now heads to the Senate where it will likely be debated in early June.

Additional Resources
The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center has a detailed analysis of the House budget (House Bill 1485).
Better Choices for Pennsylvania has talking points on the House budget.

Take Action
Through Better Choices for Pennsylvania, you can take action in support of a more responsible budget. Call and email your lawmakers to urge them to use the revenue surplus and enact a drilling tax on natural gas before making deep cuts to education and health care.

MAY 3: RALLY FOR A FAIR BUDGET

LEP KEYNOTE SPEECH

This is (part of) the keynote address I delivered to the 2011 graduating class of the Latino Empowerment Project on May 20, 2011. The speech was based on my previous post, LET'S TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW

"Service employees union rallies against Corbett budget cuts"

SOURCE

DARBY — JoAnne Sessa chanted into a purple megaphone as she paced in front the of the 20 people standing in front of the Delaware County Assistance Office Tuesday afternoon.

The cheers reflected what Sessa, as a member of the Service Employees International Union Local 668, and her cohorts thought about the status of the state budget and their ties to it.

“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Corbett’s budget’s got to go,” they said, along with, “What do we want? A fair budget. When do we want it? Now.”

Sessa, a member of Local 668’s mobilizing committee, said the union members want a fair and responsible state budget in place as their three-year contract expires June 30.

Although Local 668 members have been using their lunch breaks to demonstrate weekly since the beginning of April, Tuesday marked the start of bargaining for them.

“Today is a statewide breakout because we started negotiations today,” Sessa said. “First things first. Get a fair budget. If we can get a fair budget, we can get a fair contract.”

And, she stressed, they don’t want services for their clients to be cut.

Sessa said the state could save $500 million by closing the Delaware loophole, which she said allows corporations that operate in Pennsylvania to list their offices in Delaware to avoid Pennsylvania taxes.

In addition, she said another $200 million could be realized through the Marcellus Shale initiative that would permit drilling in the natural gas reserve.

Eric Shirk, spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, said challenging decisions had to be made.

“The state is facing a $4.2 billion deficit,” he said. “These are difficult times in a difficult economy. Difficult choices had to be made.”

In the rain Tuesday, workers carried signs, reading, “Fight for a Fair Economy!” and “Fight for a Fair Contract.”

In between whistle blows, chants and claps, cars, trucks and even an ambulance beeped in support.

“We want a fair contract,” Sessa said. “We need to protect our clients and our community so that they receive the best services possible. We need a responsible budget that protects public services and holds corporations accountable.”

She said 80 employees inside the Darby office are part of the more than 20,000 workers employed by state, county and municipal governments in Pennsylvania represented by SEIU Local 668.

As people walked in and out of the building on Main Street, Sessa said the union members thought of those who rely on them.

“Our concerns lie with the services we provide,” Sessa said. “(The clients) think we’re out here for ourselves. It’s not about that. It’s for them.”

"Some Pennsylvania state workers told to toe the line on dress"

SOURCE

HARRISBURG - Appearances matter, your mother always told you. One of Gov. Corbett's cabinet members wants to reinforce that message.


In a pair of memos in recent months, Welfare Secretary Gary Alexander has laid out do's and don'ts for his executive-level staff and a select circle of other employees when it comes to dressing for work.
 
Some are obvious: No flip-flops, sweatpants, tattered jeans, halter tops, short skirts, or skorts. (Do they make those for adult women?) And no beach attire.


Others may defy explanation for the female 45-and-under crowd: No open-toed shoes, please. And panty hose or tights are a must, which, taking the next logical step, presumes leaving your dress slacks at home.
 
A spokesman for Alexander said Friday that the guidelines were only meant to remind employees to always project a professional image when representing the department.


But the memos have irked some women who work in the Capitol. An aide in another agency, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: 
"Why did we burn our bras?"


It is the second time in as many days that actions of a Corbett cabinet appointee were fodder for watercooler jokes. The Capitol on Friday was abuzz about the words Secretary of Health Eli N. Avila was said to have directed at a local diner owner in an argument over the freshness of the eggs in his egg sandwich.
 
The restaurateur quoted Avila as saying loudly: "Do you know who I am? I am the secretary of health!" Weeks later, a city health inspector descended on the diner at Avila's request. Avila issued a statement saying he'd felt a duty to report "what he believed were unsanitary cooking conditions." On Friday, he again declined a request for an interview on the episode.


Others wasted no time having sport with the egg drama. The state Democratic Party swiftly spoofed the event in an animated video entitled "Reenactment."


At the Department of Public Welfare, spokesman Michael Race said Friday that his boss had not put a formal dress code in place.

Alexander did, however, recently e-mail about two dozen executive-level staffers, including deputy secretaries and executive assistants, telling them it was important to "establish an image for the entire department as well as the Commonwealth-at-large."


"He wanted to reinforce that these are people who interact with the public in their positions," Race said of Alexander, "and that he wanted them to put forth a professional presentation to the public."
 
Executive staff weren't the only ones told what to wear. Employees in a program that helps groom them for leadership roles were told by e-mail that to attend an April 27 luncheon featuring a speech by Alexander, they should wear "professional dress."


"For men, this means a suit and tie," the e-mail said. "And for women, this means closed-toe shoes and nylons or tights."

"A New Wall Street Investigation"

"The Widening Wealth Gap"

"Sharing the Pain," by Kathy Jellison

I want to talk a little bit about “sharing the pain”, “shared sacrifice” and “shared responsibility”, the new buzz words in Pennsylvania.


According to the most recent comprehensive report from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Pennsylvania has the largest full-time and second most expensive legislative branch in the nation. The report shows that, despite ranking sixth in the nation in population, Pennsylvania’s legislative branch of 253 lawmakers and 2,918 support staff dwarfs those of larger, more populous states. With 120 lawmakers and 2,067 legislative staffers, California spent $336 million on its legislative branch, compared to Pennsylvania’s $319 million. But California, the most populous state in the nation, has 36.5 million people. Pennsylvania has 12.5 million.


Our “full-time” legislature is based on a 3-day work week, from February to July with more days added as the June 30 budget deadline approaches. It then goes into a summer recess for 3 months, resuming in September and, unless it is an election year, running through December. During an election year, legislators take a break over the election to return to their districts. And you want to take away our overtime, cut our hours of work and change our schedules?
And then there are the perks:

- Per diems are currently $163 a day, intended to cover the cost of lodging and meals. The per diems are paid automatically without any need on the legislator’s part to verify expenses and even if they obtain free meals elsewhere or own their own homes in the Harrisburg area. And you want to take away our $3.50 lunch reimbursement?


- The base salary for legislators in both houses of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is $78,314 a year, 4th highest in the nation. And you want to roll back our wages?


- Healthcare is fully paid for the members of the House, a benefit worth $16,700 per year. The prescription plan calls for a $6 co-pay for name-brand drugs and a $3 co-pay for generic drugs.


- Senators receive about $13,031 toward their healthcare. In 2007, the Senate changed its policy to require senators and retired senators to pay 1% of their salaries to healthcare.


- We pay 3% of our salary toward healthcare, 1.5% with the Get Healthy. And you want us to pay more? All this while our new employees, IIIs and EAWs are penalized?


- Legislators elected prior to 1974 qualify for a pension multiplier of 7.5. Mellow, for instance, who has 40 years in office, is eligible for a pension up to 3 times his current salary of $110,350. In most cases, a lawmaker elected at age 30, who serves 20 years and leaves office at age 50, qualifies for 65% of his or her salary or $50,900 a year based on current salary. And the figures go up from there, depending on service years. And you want to change our pensions?


- Expense accounts, a gym, a clinic staffed by 4 nurses and a doctor (when Harrisburg Hospital is 3 blocks away), a lavish dining room, and a barber who is paid $37,000 per year to be available to cut hair. AND, automatic pay increases!


- More than 70 of the General Assembly’s 3,000 employees make more than $100,000 – more than their bosses. Some exceed Governor Corbett’s salary – the largest is $173,526.


- We are being asked to accept salary reductions, increases in the amount we pay to healthcare, loss of the Get Healthy program (which has saved millions over the years), cuts to leave and benefits.


- Your side of the table hasn’t had a raise in 3 years and we have faced furloughs every year for the past 3 years, payless paydays and continue to do more with less. We have seen the closure of The Scranton and Scotland Schools, Mayview, Harrisburg and Allentown State Hospitals, Warren YDC, the consolidation of New Castle YDC and the threat to privatize the Forensic units.


- We still see Correction Officers making more money than our Drug and Alcohol and other Counselors, LPNs with 1 year of training making more than our pay grade 6 professionals and our jobs devalued as those with less education and/or training surpass us financially. We see our new staff leaving due to the overwhelming workload and lack of adequate training – with a considerable cost to the commonwealth. They leave because they have to pay for healthcare and because the IIIs and EAWs are not given full healthcare.

- Who is really “sharing the pain?”

- In the meantime, the price of gas is at an all-time high, the price of food has gone up and the amount of work we do increases almost daily.


- All this while state revenues are up and the commonwealth is now showing a surplus? The legislators are now fighting on what to do with this money and we are looking at layoffs and givebacks?


- All this while the Governor refuses to consider a severance tax on Marcellus shale, close the Delaware loophole, tax cigars and smokeless tobacco and stop the Sales Vendor Tax Discount? If all these were enacted and we “shared the pain” we would be having a much different climate for state contract negotiations.


- We understand and will work with you to get a fair and decent contract but expect that ALL the state employees in Pennsylvania do the same.


- We know more than anyone how the budget affects our work and see vital programs being cut to our poor, elderly and children. We live it every day.

 I looked at my opening from the last state contract negotiations and could have copied and distributed much of it today. Many of the same issues and questions persist:

- Why are there so many layers of management at a time when more resources are needed on the front lines and at a time when there is a record demand for services?


- Why can’t we work together to save the commonwealth money and resources by
having AWS and FLEX time, job sharing, working from home and 4-10 hour days?


- PEBTF – a very successful endeavor. Had the commonwealth paid into the fund as agreed to in the last contract, we would have well over a 5 month reserve and could look at further benefits for our members and/or reduced percentage rates for our members and retirees. Do you realize our current retirees must pay 3% on their final wages and not on their retirement wages? And they get no COLAs? Keeping our members healthy is the best strategy for keeping our health insurance costs down.


- Why do the most senior employees risk losing the leave they have saved over the years and their yearly increment? Much of this knowledge will soon walk out the door, what is the commonwealth doing to utilize and pass this knowledge on?


- We have a trained and dedicated workforce and we care about the jobs that we do and the people that we help. We are willing to take into account the
severe fiscal constraints and challenges facing the commonwealth, hell, we have offered $1 billion in cost-savings!

You have a copy of our proposals, are there any questions before we begin

DARBY CAO IN ACTION!

"The Word: Autocratic for the People"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Autocratic for the People
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

WHAT DOES GOVERNOR CORBETT HAVE AGAINST HEALTHCARE?

As the governor prepares to receive a medical procedure paid for by the taxpayers, we should ask ourselves why he is accepting these services, oftentimes referred to as socialist by him and members of his party. It's safe to assume that the governor will not "pull himself up his bootstraps," and take the "personal responsibility" to rearrange his personal budget, "tighten his belt" and include the costs of his medical procedure in his personal finances.


After all, that's what he expects us to do. In March 2010, within days of President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act, he files suit against it. Even though the debate lasted for over 2 years, he still thought that members of congress did not understand the Constitutionality of the bill.


Then, in contradiction with his campaign promises, he allowed the safety net medical assistance program, AdultBasic, to expire. We now have an approximate $500M surplus for the current fiscal year.


On top of these two acts of healthcare discrimination (based on economic status), the governor now wants unionized employees to take a 4% decrease in pay in unison with an increase in healthcare costs. The increase in costs will make it nearly impossible for some to afford the coverage they have now and have had for years.


I'd assume that the governor is not paying for his back surgery because 1) he cannot afford it and cannot fit it in his personal budget, 2) he was provided healthcare as part of his contract with the government/citizens of PA.


The people of PA, including public sector workers, are not appealing the necessity of the governor's medical procedure. We are also not crying out for him to pay for it himself. We understand that, upon hire/election, those benefits were agreed to by both sides.


We now expect the governor to do the same for the workers of PA. Honor the negotiated benefits and acknowledge that healthcare is a human right and covers medical conditions and emergencies that the majority in the Commonwealth cannot afford without insurance.

Drilling Tax Delay Costs Pennsylvania:

"Principles for a Better Budget"

FULL REPORT

Coming out of the recession, Pennsylvania must take a forward-looking approach to the state budget that focuses on creating jobs and ensuring our long-term economic success, according to a report released today.

With only five days to go until Governor Corbett unveils his 2011-12 budget blueprint, the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center and PennFuture teamed up to produce the new report, titled "Principles for a Better Budget," which outlines a series of budget principles to promote a more prosperous Pennsylvania.

Introduction: Building Pennsylvania’s Future Coming Out of the Recession

Pennsylvania is poised for growth and prosperity coming out of the recession. The Commonwealth ranked third among all states in job creation in 2010, adding 65,000 new jobs. As bad as the recession has been, Pennsylvania weathered it better than most states, with unemployment, on average, nearly a full percentage point below the national average for 35 of the 36 months of the recession.

States that saw rapid growth during the housing boom now face declining fortunes and fading prospects. Nevada, Florida and Arizona have led the nation in population growth but now lead the nation in foreclosures and unemployment. Texas, long heralded as an example of fiscal restraint, has the nation’s second largest budget deficit in 2011. It is a lesson we should not take lightly: economic prosperity must be based on granite rather than sand.

Pennsylvania’s stronger-than-average performance through the recession is not an anomaly or a product of luck. It is based on economic policies that invest in communities and families, in infrastructure and innovation, and in clean energy.

State general fund and capital spending accounts for about 6% of the overall economy, but that 6% is important. It lays the foundation for economic growth and, in partnership with private capital, creates jobs and wealth. It has helped the population—businesses and citizens—to make the difficult transition from a manufacturing economy to one that is more diverse. It has improved our ability to compete in the world of globalized technology, manufacturing and services. Smart, strategic investments have made Pennsylvania a leader in clean energy and a model for other states.

The recession has created an imbalance between the needs of the citizens and the resources available to pay for them. Like 48 other states, the Commonwealth has seen an unprecedented decline in revenue and record-breaking demand for services. People who have lived the American dream are now relying on food stamps. Our faith has been shaken, in our nation and our government, but we are Americans and we know, deep down, we will prevail, better and stronger.

Like President Obama, Governor Corbett has inherited a battered economy and has choices to make that will determine Pennsylvania’s path well into the future. The state budget is one of the tools at his disposal to create jobs and ensure prosperity. We offer here six principles for a prosperous Pennsylvania. These are a starting point for discussion. They represent a pragmatic alternative path for our new Governor, legislature, and state. These principles should serve as goals and values against which to measure the budget that will be announced on March 8 and budget proposals made subsequently.

"Many Families Turn to Public Services in Recession"

SOURCE

% CHANGE SINCE RECESSION BEGAN (12/07)

Cash = +7.91%

Food Stamps (Household) = +50.09%

Food Stamps (Individual) = +48.35%

Medical Assistance = +21.36%

Medical Assistance (children) = +18.28%

CHIP = +16.07%

"Walker gets protestors at Annual Governor's Fishing Opener in Chippewa Falls"

"Don't Cut-off PA's Unemployed Workers! Pass SB 994 to Continue Extended Benefits!"

SOURCE

Unless Pennsylvania lawmakers take action soon, long-term unemployed workers in Pennsylvania will lose up to 20 weeks of unemployment compensation known as Extended Benefits on June 11, 2011. Senate Bill 994 would allow Pennsylvania’s unemployed to keep these federally-funded benefits.

On June 11, 2011, an estimated 45,000 unemployed workers in Pennsylvania will be cut-off of the Extended Benefits they’ve been receiving — unless the legislature acts. Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry estimates that a total of 135,000 jobless workers could lose eligibility for these benefits this year starting on June 11th.

The federal government now covers 100% of the cost of these benefits for non-government employees. All the state needs to do to continue receiving these federally-funded benefits is to enact a technical fix to the state unemployment insurance law. Senate Bill 994 would do just that.

Republicans and Democrats in every one of Pennsylvania’s neighboring states—Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland—have all recently passed the needed Extended Benefits legislation. In total, 24 states have already acted to allow individuals to continue these benefits.

Thanks to federally-funded Extended Benefits, more than $1.5 billion additional dollars flowed into Pennsylvania since the recession started — benefiting unemployed workers and businesses alike. 200,000 of us, our friends, family members, and neighbors have counted on these benefits to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

This small legislative change, with no cost to Pennsylvania, is the only thing that stands in the way of unemployed workers being able to secure the benefits they, and the local economy, so desperately need, and that the federal government is underwriting.

It’s time for Pennsylvania lawmakers to act.

Please send a message to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett now!

Click on “Participate” to send Governor Corbett a message: Don’t Cut-off Pennsylvania’s Unemployed Workers! Support passage of SB 994 to Continue Extended Benefits!

Also, please call Governor Corbett with that message:
Gov. Corbett: 717-787-2500

(YOU)NION

WATCH THE ENTIRE AWARD-WINNING, 4-PART DOCUMENTARY HERE

I'm old enough to remember the phrase from my childhood of "it takes a village to raise a child."  The idea behind this train of thought is that of community; of looking out for one's neighbor; of having a common interest in the well-being of all children.  The default view of society was that the more people who were "doing well," the better it made society as a whole.  If no one is suffering(either financially, emotionally, or physically), that spurs more opportunity for all and a more attainable opportunity for upward economic and social mobility.

That was the 70's, the decade of the free-mind. Hippies, conscientious college students, civil rights activists, anti-war demonstrators, and general lovers of peace and the collective American ideal(formerly known as "The American Dream.")  Then came the 1980's.

This decade transformed our country in ways that are contributing to our current hardships, both ideologically and fiscally.  With the emergence of television "programming,"our views of social and political issues has changed.  Ronald Reagan, fully understanding the immense influence of the silver-screen, reinforced the "Free Market/individualist" mindset of the country.  By minimizing the importance of the role of government in citizens lives, he began a shift in people's views towards the individual--although in most cases, this caused many Americans to vote and generally change their moral compass against their personal best interests.

This philosophy of individualism is based mainly on the work of Ayn Rand. (1905 - 1982)   

"Ayn Rand’s philosophy—known as Objectivism—holds that historical trends are the inescapable product of philosophy. To reverse the current political and economic trends in America and throughout the world requires a reversal of our society’s fundamental philosophy. Victory in this war of ideas will ultimately mean the defeat of the widely held, pernicious ideologies that dominate contemporary culture and threaten our liberty—ideologies such as collectivism, moral relativism and multiculturalism."

I am all about people's personal freedoms and liberties, but Ms. Rand's "square peg" doesn't fit the "round hole."  The peg of which she speaks seems to be based on our economic structure, Capitalism, and many of the subscribers to this philosophy attempt to fit it into the hole of our governmental structure, Democracy.  Moreover, it directly contradicts the ideas of government "by, for, and of the people."

This individualist mindset many have, both knowingly and unknowingly, makes organizations like unions less effective.  The idea behind unions is collective representation and bargaining.  The number of (active)members is where the power and influence come from.  Because of the individualism, many members look to the figureheads of union leadership (the same way they look to their bosses) for action and results.  Union membership is more than paying monetary dues; personal dues and sacrifices must be paid as well.

Until we recognize the power WE have collectively, the union will remain in its current state of operation and effectiveness.  When the very members who compose the union do not support(or believe in) it, how can we expect the full effectiveness to come into fruition.  It is also unfair to expect others, such as private sector workers and those we negotiate with, to respect the actual number of members/workers who are represented under the umbrella of individual bargaining units or the union as a whole.

Unfortunately, the time has come where we cannot even take the mere existence of unions for granted.  It is very plausible to think that this could be the last contract EVER negotiated.  Most Republicans, with their "personal responsibility" ideology, and increasing numbers of Democrats are actively targeting unionized workers as scapegoats for many of the financial crises in the country right now.  The facts don't necessarily mean as much as the perceptions of voters.

And how can we expect them to support our cause when WE do not even support it?