posted on September 1, 2003 09:19:20 AM newU.S. Workers Struggle in Worst Job Slump Since Great Depression
In terms of employment growth, the current recovery is the [b]worst on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking employment in 1939. Employment is down over one million since the recovery began. Adding in the job losses from the actual recession, payrolls are down by 2.7 million overall—3.2 million in the private sector—making this the worst hiring slump since the Great Depression.
And, since George took office, the current recovery has been the worst for job growth on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began tracking unemployment in 1939, the report finds.
AFL-CIO chief lashes Bush's record on labor Workers undermined to benefit wealthy, corporations, Sweeney says
By KATHERINE M. SKIBA
[email protected]
Last Updated: Aug. 28, 2003
Washington - On the eve of Labor Day weekend, the head of the AFL-CIO flailed President Bush on Thursday, saying he had "pulled the rug out from under America's working people and rolled out a red carpet for the wealthy and giant corporations."
John J. Sweeney and other officials of the 13.5 million-member labor federation, the country's largest, said a net loss of 3 million jobs, including 2.7 million in industrial sectors, gave Bush the worst track record of any president since Herbert Hoover. Hoover served one term beginning in 1929, just as the Great Depression put millions out of work.
"I travel this country constantly, (and) people are very dissatisfied with the way the country is going," said Sweeney, who joined Richard L. Trumka, the federation's secretary-treasurer, in addressing reporters
Trumka characterized working people as angry. He noted that the 11 million jobless Americans equal the entire work force in Texas.
Unions represent 13% of the U.S. work force, down from a mid-1960s peak of 35%, according to Christine Owens, the federation's public policy director.
Owens blamed the decline on the growth of service-sector positions at the expense of manufacturing jobs, increased employer opposition to unions, and "lukewarm federal enforcement" of labor protection laws.
Sweeney and other federation officials were preparing to fan out to several states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and California, to launch what he called "a major campaign to build nationwide support for workers' freedom to choose a union."
'Millionaire tax breaks'
White House spokesman Jim Morrell responded to the labor officials' presentation by saying: "The president is committed to making sure that our economy is growing and that jobs are being created. That's why he led the way on passing an economic growth package in 2001 and again this year."
Bush's Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the jobs-and-growth plan enacted this year will create 1.4 million jobs by 2004, Morrell said.
"We're already seeing some positive economic developments," he added, pointing to Commerce Department reports that new orders for durable goods climbed in July for the second successive month. "That's a good sign that business spending is increasing, which is in turn a good sign for the economy."
But Sweeney derided Bush's economic policies as "disastrous" and cited what he called a "disturbing pattern," including the Bush tax cuts, a bid to exclude millions of Americans from overtime benefits and the refusal to let Homeland Security Department workers and airport federal screeners form unions.
Sweeney quoted Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlofof the University of California at Los Angeles as saying that the Bush fiscal policies were the "worst in over 200 years" and estimating the Bush tax cuts would mean a 10-year deficit of almost $6 trillion.
"For the same money that Bush spent on millionaire tax breaks, he could have stimulated the economy and created jobs by building roads and schools, helped provide much-needed health care, sent urgently needed aid to the states and given tax breaks to the low- and middle-income earners who need it and will spend it to get the economy moving," Sweeney said.
Trumka attacked Bush's trade policy as "catastrophic." He said the $500 billion yearly trade deficit showed that a variety of jobs are flooding overseas, including positions in the automotive, aviation, computer, data-processing and software-programming sectors.
He characterized China, which accounts for $100 billion of the trade imbalance, as a place that "suppresses worker rights, protects its markets and manipulates and controls its currency."
The administration, Trumka said, is forging ahead on negotiations toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which he characterized as "NAFTA on steroids." NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The free-trade area "will sweep NAFTA's devastation to the entire Western Hemisphere, leaving lost jobs, a harmed environment and a host of worker abuses in its wake," Trumka said.
Major organizing expected
According to Sweeney, 40 million Americans say they would form a union tomorrow, but "too few" will have a chance. He cited Cornell University research indicating that 95% of private-sector employers fight union organizing, some using illegal tactics such as threatening to shut down if workers choose a union or firing union supporters.
Sweeney noted that although the AFL-CIO tended to work more closely with Democratic administrations, it always has had a relationship with GOP administrations until now. He said Bush was asked to speak to the federation's executive council anytime this summer, and the federation was turned down.
Sweeney said Bush was the first president who has never met with the AFL-CIO's president since the merger of the AFL and the CIO in 1955. "I personally think that is a travesty," Sweeney said.
Calling Bush's the most "anti-worker administration in decades," he said a half-million workers nonetheless formed a union last year with one of the AFL-CIO's 64 affiliates, putting at 3 million the number of people to form unions since 1995.
"Although the pace of organizing is still not where we want it to be, it is far greater than many people realize and greater than it has been in decades," Sweeney said.
The AFL-CIO expects major organizing efforts this year among auto workers, health care workers, roofers in Arizona, farm workers in California and state workers in Illinois, New Mexico and New Jersey, he said.
Sweeney also noted that workers for Cintas, the nation's largest industrial laundry service, are organizing in dozens of cities across the United States.
posted on September 1, 2003 09:26:31 AM new
So much for thinking that maybe Helen had a positive outlook and was wishing everyone a Happy Labor day... as usual negativity runneth over... As the saying goes only the good die young... I am sure you will be one C.O.B.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on September 1, 2003 10:21:08 AM new
Aug. 31, 2003, 11:21PM
U.S. workers most productive
But study says Europeans have more output per hour
Associated Press
GENEVA -- U.S. workers are the world's most productive, but they put in more hours than Europeans to score higher, according to a study released today by the U.N. labor agency.
Workers in France, Belgium and Norway beat the Americans in productivity per hour, the International Labor Organization said in its new issue of Key Indicators of the Labor Market.
The output per U.S. worker last year was $60,728, the report said. Belgium, the highest-scoring European Union member, had an output of $54,333 per worker.
"Part of the difference in output per worker was due to the fact that Americans worked longer hours than their European counterparts," the ILO said. "U.S. workers put in an average of 1,825 hours in 2002."
That is the equivalent of nearly 46 40-hour weeks.
Japanese worked about the same number of hours as Americans, but in major European economies the average ranged from 1,300 to 1,800 hours, the ILO said.
"In terms of output per person employed, the U.S. is on top," said Dorothea Schmidt, an economist on the team that produced the 855-page report. "In terms of output per hour, we have three European countries doing better than the U.S. ... and they have done so ever since the mid-80s."
Norwegians lead the world with an output of $38 per hour worked last year.
French workers were in second place, averaging $35 an hour, the report said. Belgians were third at $34, followed by Americans at $32.
Schmidt said there are "many, many reasons" why the three countries outscored the United States.
"One might be that during the time that these people work, they work more efficiently," she said. "It might be that the technology they use enables them to be more efficient in this one hour."
But Schmidt said the differences were not that great.
"It's not that they do twice the work that a U.S. worker does," she said. "It's the small things. If you work 15 hours a day, of course there are hours when you are not as productive as if you only work six hours a day."
But working less is not necessary the key, as shown by most other European Union countries that trail the United States, she said. It also depends on such factors as motivation, skills and training.
posted on September 1, 2003 12:08:38 PM new
Bush is in town today in Cleveland. He's talking to the labor unions in hopes of getting their support for re-election (like that will happen) and assuring them their jobs are going to be safe. And the lies continue. . . .even on Labor Day.
Cheryl
The next time you think you're so perfect, try walking on water.
posted on September 1, 2003 02:34:08 PM new
The Grinch That Stole Labor Day
By Greg Palast
Friday 29 August 2003
In celebration of the working person's holiday, Secretary of Labor
Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the
60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for
overtime.
I'm sure you already knew that -- if you happened to have run across
page 15,576 of the Federal Register.
According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to
place it's little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million
workers will lose their overtime pay -- for a "benefit" of $1.53
billion. I put "benefit" in quotes because, in the official cost-
benefit analysis issued by Bush's Labor Department, the amount
employers will now be able to slice out of workers' pockets is
tallied on the plus side of the rules change.
Continued at:
http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030901~v4c.asp
posted on September 1, 2003 04:02:08 PM new
Congressman Dennis Kucinich commented on President George W. Bush's Labor Day 2003 visit to Northeast Ohio:
"Of all days to use Ohio as a political backdrop, the president - no friend of working people - has chosen Labor Day. I hope his tour of the state will include the empty factories and bankrupt corporations."
Cheryl
The next time you think you're so perfect, try walking on water.
posted on September 1, 2003 05:37:17 PM new "Of all days to use Ohio as a political backdrop, the president - no friend of working people - has chosen Labor Day. I hope his tour of the state will include the empty factories and bankrupt corporations."
Amen to that! Cheryl!
Bush's appearance before labor unions today was ridiculously incongruous. He should have spent the day in the closet with his head bowed in shame.
posted on September 1, 2003 06:10:18 PM new
Kucinich (along with me and tons of volunteers) marched with the local unions here in their Labor Day parade. I don't know how many miles we walked, but boy was I beat afterwards. (Kucinich is like the Energizer Bunny. He keeps going and going and. . .) Where was Bush then? Oh, ya, he wasn't an invited guest like Dennis was. If he's looking to get union support, at least from Ohio, I don't think he will. Talking with these people on Saturday I get the feeling they are totally fed up and nothing Bush says is going to change that.
The great thing about the parade was that my grand daughter got to meet Dennis. She's 5 and has been helping us man the boothes at fairs and such. He was wonderful with her. She got her picture taken with him and the drawing she gave him will go up on the website. To a 5 year old, meeting a congressman is a big deal.
See the kinds of things Bush misses because "people" aren't his number one priority? What a shame.
Cheryl
The next time you think you're so perfect, try walking on water.
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Sep 1, 2003 06:11 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2003 06:17:56 PM new
He might be big in the Cleveland area... he is not a hit around Cincy... some people have never even heard of him... lol
posted on September 1, 2003 06:20:29 PM new
(Twelvepole) Whats the matter can't you take the truth Shame Shame the whole Bush Family. If Daddy had done his job Junior
Wouldn't be making such a A$$ of his self.
[ edited by GoldMagnet on Sep 1, 2003 06:21 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2003 06:34:06 PM new
BCC - Maybe you didn't read 'the rest of the story'? Or if you did you might have mentioned just who stands to benefit. And it's not your 'rich republican'.
From CNSNews.com
In what some analysts see as an unlikely role reversal, Republicans are calling for an overhaul of the outdated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would force employers to pay time-and-a-half overtime to at least 1.3 million American workers who earn less than $22,100 a year.
Democratic opponents, on the other hand, say the proposed changes could deny overtime pay to at least 8 million white collar workers who earn more than $65,000 a year. Efforts to prevent sweeping changes by the Department of Labor are being led by Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa).
Tim Bartl, assistant general counsel with the HR Policy Association, a pro-business group representing 200 human resource executives, denounced an amendment by Harkin to a general appropriations bill that would block the changes. "[/i]If the regulations are blocked, it's likely that these will not be reconsidered for at least another generation, cutting off 1.3 million employees who have the potential to get overtime under these regulations," Bartl said[/i].
The outdated rules expose employers to class-action lawsuits and large jury awards based on technicalities and should be changed, Bartl added.
The attempt to clarify who among the country's 120 million workers is eligible for overtime would be the first major change since 1954 to the FLSA, which was passed in 1938.
Those who would immediately benefit are workers at the lowest end of the pay scale, including Hispanics, blacks and women. Almost 70 percent of those affected have a high school education or less, Bartl said.
Under the proposed changes, workers would be eligible for overtime pay, regardless of duties, if they earn less than $425 a week - up from the current standard of $155 per week.
However, workers also would lose overtime eligibility if they earn more than $65,000 a year and perform some exempt duties, such as supervise at least two other employees, critics charge. White collar workers would not be eligible if their primary duty is office or non-manual work.
According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a public policy group that supports the Harkin Amendment, 8 million workers are likely to lose their right to time-and-a-half premium pay for work over 40 hours a week if the changes are implemented.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 1, 2003 06:38 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2003 06:57:37 PM new
Here's where I have a problem with that law.
With Overtime - Joe works a 50 hour week at $10 an hour = $650
Feds decides that if Joe makes over $425 a week he is no longer eligible for overtime.
Joes employer gives Joe a 7% raise. Joe now makes 10.70 an hour and does not qualify for overtime pay. Joe works same 50 hours. Joe now makes $535 a week.
Joe gets a raise and loses $460 a month.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
[ edited by Fenix03 on Sep 1, 2003 09:15 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2003 07:10:02 PM new
Yes....there are good and bad to the proposed bill....according to how you take what's proposed.
BUT that wasn't my point in posting this. My point was that both Helen and BCC copy and pasted other people's words that DIDN'T give the whole story. One their one sided version. ...as usual.
If it had just been presented as a topic to be debated....that's fine...but the only posting 'bush is against workers - wants to cut overtime' doesn't also show there are some people who will benefit.
posted on September 1, 2003 07:23:38 PM new
Middle class workers would be hurt by these proposals, Linda. My recent post was not "copy paste of other peoples words".
LINDA, Your post was copy paste of other peoples words.
This is a news story....
The proposal would help low-income workers but could be costly for many others.
The new regulations would raise the number of low-income Americans earning time-and-a-half overtime by increasing the level of pay at which employees automatically qualify. Currently, anyone earning less than $8,060 per year is eligible, but the ceiling would rise to $22,100. Republican supporters say at least 1.3 million Americans would benefit from the change.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said the plan "will strengthen overtime for the most vulnerable low-wage workers."
At the same time, the proposal would make it easier for employers to declare employees "exempt" from overtime rules if they make more than $65,000 per year. The Labor Department estimates that 644,000 Americans could lose their overtime pay, while Democratic opponents say it could hit at least 8 million workers. The exact number would depend on how many companies seek to reclassify employees.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said that workers will lose their protections against excessive hours if the plan goes through.
"There's a disturbing pattern here," he said. "Employers are hiring fewer workers here in the U.S. and working them longer. And now the Bush administration is trying to make it cheaper for them to work employees even longer with its proposed changes in overtime rules. . . . Bush has attacked worker protections every chance he's gotten."
Democratic Sen. Mark Dayton is cosponsoring legislation to defeat the proposal.
"It's unjustified, unwarranted and it ought to be illegal," he said.
Currently, workers must make at least $155 per week before their employers can consider if they meet other requirements for being exempt from overtime pay. The new rule would raise the minimum to $425 per week.
The proposed new regulations also would change the test for deciding which employees -- usually white-collar executives and administrators -- can be given fixed salaries and required to work overtime for no extra pay. The current rule defining an "exempt" employee as one who uses "discretion and independent judgment" would be changed to allow exemptions for employees who hold a "position of responsibility." Employees who supervise as few as two workers could be denied overtime pay.
Many union leaders and opponents fear employers would use the new definitions and rules to reclassify more of their workers as exempt from overtime.
"These proposed overtime cuts will not only take money out of the hands of middle-class families, but also strike a major blow to any form of morale that currently exists in our workforce," Steven Jones of Winston-Salem, N.C., wrote to the Labor Department. "This is another example of tampering with the lives of hard-working people on the part of someone who's never really had to work for a living."
posted on September 1, 2003 07:31:17 PM new"If it had just been presented as a topic to be debated....that's fine...but the only posting 'bush is against workers - wants to cut overtime' doesn't also show there are some people who will benefit."
As usual, the people who will benefit are employers and corporations.
posted on September 1, 2003 08:49:20 PM new
Most employees that make over $65,000/yr are already "exempt" from overtime pay... If they are using overtime to make $65,000/yr then there is something wrong with the place they are working and it needs to be corrected.
posted on September 1, 2003 09:10:57 PM new
fenix - Sorry I couldn't post a link...it was too long for my little unit here.
But basically, imo, it's to update the FLSA and to put more of the unemployed to work.
Rather than working two people 60 hours a week, you employ three people for 40 hours a week. That was the original purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act and these overtime rules," Eisenbrey said
posted on September 1, 2003 09:23:35 PM new
I see, reducing the hourly rate of pay will increase the amount that the workers take home and encourage management to hire more workers since each gets less they can afford more. Makes perfect sense (not).
posted on September 1, 2003 09:38:26 PM new
I do a slow burn, thinking about the corporations who will love this new law. When I was hiring, my boss said if he could he'd hire all half-time workers because you didn't have to pay any benefits and most of the time they put in more hours than they were getting paid for.
Unfortunately, some workers let their fear of the "godless Democratic party" get in the way of their thinking clearly about who benefits from Republican policies, and these folks vote - blindly, in my estimation.
If we examine which party gets the vast majority of corporate $$ donations, we can then see pretty clearly who benefits from that party's policies. And who doesn't.
___________________________________
posted on September 1, 2003 10:09:09 PM new
Linda - don't tax your computer - we want you to hang in for all the action.
I don't understand is how eliminating overtime pay is going to create more jobs. Isn't that how you kick start the economy? You get people working.
If the original purpose was to inspire employers to have 3 40 hour employees as opposed to 2 60 hour ones is there any reason that the Bush admin thinks that employers will not now see an opportunity to downscale their overhead by increasing hours and decreasing employees?
Isn't the logical result of this action to increase unemployment numbers as employers fire, lay-off, or simply do not replace leaving workers?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
posted on September 2, 2003 03:12:12 AM new
The problem with the bill is this:
With most major Companies there's a thin line now between hiring new workers or giving employees overtime. In most cases it's cheaper to give the overtime.
The costs for Compensation and training are high.
If we take away the time and a half there will be no incentive to hire new workers.
posted on September 2, 2003 04:31:31 AM new
I wish some of you people would go back and take some business classes... overtime shows INEFFICIENCY in their production efforts, it is MORE costly in the long run than hiring new workers, who most times start at the bottom and make way less than people who have been there and especially making time and half.
Whether this will add new positions, only time will tell....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on September 2, 2003 05:05:56 AM new
My company's solution was to put people on salary. That way I can work 80 hours a week for 40 hours worth of pay. Granted the benefits are better, but what good are they if I'm dead from exhaustion? Another thing was to use two part-time receptionists instead of one full-time. Part-timers get no benefits. Companies will get around what they can get around no matter what the literal law is. Where I worked prior to this, they had the unemployment insurance laws down pact. They knew just how many people they could have full-time without having to pay for unemployment insurance. They never had to pay a dime into it. So, the poor souls who got laid off received no unemployment.
Don't ever be fooled into thinking any corporation has your best interest at heart.
Cheryl
The next time you think you're so perfect, try walking on water.
posted on September 2, 2003 06:40:29 AM new
You know I always get a chuckle when I see "put me on Salary, so I work 80 hours and get paid for 40..."
IF you are allowing yourself to work 80 hours .... then you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what you are doing wrong.
Companies assign tasks, not hours...if you are taking longer than 50 hours a week to accomplish those tasks, then you are either working too slow or not compentent in what you are doing.
Or your a doormat and companies love doormats...
Most companies allow comp time off for overtime worked to exempt employees...
Shame Shame Bush