Obama Presidency Called 'Victory for Working People' Following the victory of labor-backed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the 2008 presidential election, union leaders called Obama's win a victory for working people, citing his stated policy agenda that includes cutting taxes for working Americans, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, and securing greater access to health care. "At its foundation, this is a victory for working people by working 
people," Change to Win federation Chair Anna Burger said in a Nov. 4 statement. "For working families, this election has always been about the economy, about health care, about rebuilding the middle class and renewing the American Dream for those who want nothing more but to provide the next generation with a better future." At a Nov. 5 press conference AFL-CIO leaders said union turnout made the difference for Obama in a number of swing states. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney called the Obama victory a mandate for economic change and said the country has taken the first steps to build a better nation for our children. "Barack's insight and leadership drive a policy agenda that supports those working people who have formed a union, as well as those who have not yet formed a union," UNITE HERE General President Bruce Raynor said in a Nov. 5 statement. "We believe in Barack Obama - a man who understands the experiences of working people." "There can be no overstatement for what hardworking Americans all over this great country have accomplished" by choosing a president, vice president, and congressional candidates "that understand the American Dream is not just our ideal, it is our responsibility," Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern said in a Nov. 4 statement. "We will work with our elected leaders to establish a clear agenda to rebuild the middle class, fix our national healthcare system, give workers a stronger voice and hold politicians accountable for the promises made to the hardworking families of this nation who tonight have changed history," Stern said.  | |
Unions Focus on Passage of Employee Free Choice Act Thousands of union members within the Change to Win federation mobilized to campaign for the election of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as president, and the union federation now is planning to press for Change to Win's legislative priorities in the first 100 days of the new Congress. Following months of campaigning for Obama and pro-worker candidates in state and local races across the country, the labor federation Change to Win "intends to help President Obama pass the Employee Free Choice Act, so that working people can join unions again," said Tom Woodruff, director of Change to Win's Center for Strategic Organizing. Woodruff also serves as the Service Employees International Union's executive vice president. Even though the Senate will have fewer than 60 Democrats, Change to Win will not be deterred from pushing for passage of EFCA in the first 100 days. There are Republicans in the Senate who will support the Employee Free Choice Act - and the president can help through his support. The legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to give workers the option to form a union through a National Labor Relations Board check of authorization cards signed by a majority of employees. The bill also would provide for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to mediate and arbitrate first collective bargaining agreements if the parties fail to reach agreement within certain time periods and would establish tougher penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers during an organizing campaign or during bargaining for a first contract. Union leaders say the bill is needed because employers frequently coerce, intimidate, and fire pro-union workers during the run-up to an election and, if the union wins, use dilatory tactics to prevent reaching a first contract. In March 2007, the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800) by a vote of 241-185, but in June 2007, supporters of the bill in the Senate fell nine votes short of the 60 needed to limit Senate debate and proceed to final consideration of the bill. Survey evidence presented by Larry Mishel, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute, showed that more than half of nonunion, nonsupervisory workers said they would join a union and believed their co-workers also would join if they were given the chance. That percentage has risen in the past 10 years. "If everybody who has a union and everybody who doesn't have a union would get a union, we'd have a unionization rate in this country of 58 percent," he said. | |
DHS Will Not Meet 2012 Deadline to Scan All Port Cargo The Labor Department should withdraw or substantially revise proposed rules it issued in July to amend regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act,  The Homeland Security Department says it will not meet a 2012 deadline set by Congress to scan the contents of every cargo container headed to U.S. ports. Instead, it plans to gather more information about who made the goods in the containers and
who packed them. Under that proposal, only a small fraction of the 11 million containers shipped to the U.S. each year - those from unknown companies and countries known to harbor terrorists - would be flagged to be scanned for nuclear or radiological materials. "It's called Risk Management 101," Secretary Michael Chertoff says. "I'm not terribly concerned someone's going to build a nuclear bomb in England" and load it into a container headed for a U.S. port. "But I might be more concerned about South Asia." Chertoff says there are countless obstacles to the 100% scanning mandate passed by Congress in 2006. Among them: Some countries don't want U.S. Customs officers operating scanning equipment in their ports; scans could slow trade; the program would be costly. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., counters that the only way to guard against deadly weapons being shipped to the U.S. is to scan every container before it's loaded on a ship overseas. "It is vital to our nation's security," he says. "The more time the secretary spends on excuses, instead of solutions, the longer our nation's ports remain vulnerable." You can read the entire article at USA Today's website. Workplace Violence Injuries Twice as Common in Healthcare Workplace violence is a major public health concern that has increased in occurrence and attention within the past decade. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) define workplace violence as any physical assault, threatening behavior or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. The Bureau of Labor statistics state injuries resulting from violent acts occur twice as often for health care workers compared to other workers. The violence incident is likely far greater than that which is reported, which results from inadequate reporting mechanisms and victim fear of isolation, embarrassment, and reprisal. Violence claims a significant toll on all. In addition to the physical, emotional and mental effects on the victim, other negative effects include financial loss resulting from insurance claims, lost productivity, legal expenses, property damage, and possible staff replacement costs. Prevention is essential for creating a safe and therapeutic environment for patients and .a safer work place for health care workers. Health care workers who leave because of assaults and threats of violence contribute to a healthcare workforce shortage. It is possible to reduce and mitigate the effects of violence. One way is to establish a comprehensive program in the workplace, dedicated to prevention, collection of incidents and provision of support for those affected. Rather than wait for health care employers to volunteer to establish such programs, some states have enacted legislation calling for a workplace violence prevention program including Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia. States which enacted legislation to strengthen or increase penalties for acts of workplace violence affecting nurses include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina and New Mexico. For detailed information on what these states are doing to enforce workplace violence prevention programs, please visit the American Nurses Association. New Data Privacy Laws Set for Businesses Alicia Granstedt, a Las Vegas-based hair stylist who works for private clients and on movie sets, never worried about conducting most of her business through email. She regularly receives emails from customers containing payment details, such as credit-card numbers and bank-account transfers. Since she travels frequently, she often stores the emails on her iPhone. But a Nevada law that took effect this month requires all businesses there to encrypt personally-identifiable customer data - including names and credit-card numbers - that are transmitted electronically. After hearing about the new law, Granstedt started using email-encryption software, which requires her clients to enter a password to read her messages and send responses. It is a hassle, "but I can't afford to be responsible for someone having their identity stolen," she said. Nevada is the first of several states adopting new laws that will force businesses - from hair stylists to hospitals - to revamp the way they protect customer data. Starting in January, Massachusetts will require businesses that collect information about that state's residents to encrypt sensitive data stored on laptop computers and other portable devices. Michigan and Washington are considering similar regulations. While just a few states have adopted such measures so far, the new patchwork of regulations is something many businesses will have to navigate, since the laws apply to out-of-state companies with operations or customers in those states. While it isn't clear if state authorities intend to crack down on mom-and-pop businesses - the attorney general in Massachusetts is still developing an enforcement policy, a spokeswoman said - the laws establish a liability that could be used in civil suits against businesses following a data breach, privacy lawyers said. In Nevada, companies that suffer a security breach but comply with the new law would cap their damages at $1,000 per customer for each occurrence. Those that don't comply would be subject to unlimited civil penalties under the proposed enforcement plan, said James Earl, executive director of the state's task force for technological crimes. To review the entire article, please visit the Wall Street Journal's website. | 
