The decisions we make are based on one thing: Our people. The boxes to the right are the foundation of some of the more important principles that we as the Labor Council fight for in order to protect our people, organization, and community. Click to learn more!
WORKERS' PRIORITIES
YOUR STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
RIGHT-TO-WORK
Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through “right to work” laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. In fact, workers in states with these laws earn an average of $5,971 less a year than workers in other states. Because of the higher wages, working families in states without these laws also benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
States with Right to Work Laws Have:1
Lower Wages and Incomes
- The average worker in states with right to work laws makes $5,971 (12.2 percent) less annually than workers in states without right to when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.2
- Median household income in states with these laws is $6,568 (11.8 percent) less than in other states ($49,220 vs. $55,788).3
- In states with right to work laws, 25.9 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 18.0 percent of jobs in other states.4
Lower Rates of Health Insurance Coverage
- People under the age of 65 in states with right to work laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.3 percent, compared with 12.4 percent in free-bargaining states).5
- They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (53.9 percent, compared with 57.1 percent)6 and pay a larger share of their health insurance premiums (29.9 percent compared with 26.1 percent).7
- Only 46.8 percent of private-sector employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 52.6 percent in other states. That difference is even more pronounced among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 30.3 percent offer workers health insurance, compared with 38.8 percent of small employers in other states.8
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
- Poverty rates are higher in states with right to work laws (14.8 percent overall and 20.2 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.3 percent for children in states without these laws.9
- The infant mortality rate is 14.2 percent higher in states with these laws.10
Less Investment in Education
- States with right to work laws spend 31.3 percent less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states.11
Higher Workplace Fatalities
- The rate of workplace deaths is 54.4 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.12
1 With the exception of the infant mortality rate and low-wage jobs data, the state data included here do not include data from Indiana and Michigan. These states are not included in the 2012 and 2013 data because they passed right to work laws in 2012; the impact of right to work policies on their economies would not have been fully experienced in 2012 and 2013. They have been excluded from the free-bargaining states versus right to work state analysis for the 2012 and 2013 data.
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, Average Annual Pay for 2013, accessed 12/9/14.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2013.
4 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Low Wage Jobs, 2011.
5 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage of Nonelderly 0-64, 2012.
6 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2012.
7 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Employee Share of Premium, 2012.
8 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, by Firm Size, 2012.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2013 Below 100% and 50% of Poverty — People Under 18 Years of Age, WEIGHTED PERSON COUNT.
10 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Infant Mortality Rate (Deaths per 1,000 Live Births), 2007-2009.
11 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates–Rankings of the States 2013 and Estimates of School Statistics 2014, H-11. Current Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools per Student in Fall Enrollment, 2012-2013, March 2014.
12 AFL-CIO, Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, April 2014.
PREVAILING WAGE
The Davis Bacon Act of 1931 and more than 60 other federal statutes require contractors on federally-assisted construction projects to pay wages at the rates prevailing in the communities where they work. Similarly, the Service Contract Act of 1965 provides that on contracts worth more than $2,500 for services provided to the federal government—such as janitorial, custodial, security guard services, maintenance, clerical work, and certain health and technical services—contractors must pay employees at least the wages and fringe benefits prevailing in the local community. Such laws exist so that the purchasing power of the federal government is not used to depress local labor standards. Often referred to as the “prevailing wage,” the amount is typically based on non-union wage scales so local wage and labor standards are not undermined. When prevailing wage standards are applied, contractors win federal contracts based on having the most productive, best equipped, best trained and most productive workforce.
Studies have shown that workers who are paid the prevailing wage are more productive, and higher productivity can lower construction costs without lowering wages. Prevailing wage laws benefit blue-collar workers and their communities by:
- Encouraging training.
- Lowering the rate of injuries.
- Promoting health care coverage.
- Minimizing disruption to local labor markets.
- Ensuring that minority and female workers receive prevailing wages.
- Encouraging their participation in apprenticeship programs.
TRANSPACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
The United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement.
This trade agreement presents the Obama administration with an opportunity to reform U.S. trade policy so it helps U.S. businesses export goods, rather than outsource jobs. The president can deliver a new trade model for the 21st century—one not modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement—that creates jobs, protects the environment and ensures safe imports but only if negotiations include provisions that will benefit U.S. workers, not simply the largest global corporations. Negotiations are largely secret—but what little evidence is publicly available does not indicate the agreement is likely to break new ground for working families.
The AFL-CIO has provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle; the global corporate agenda has infused trade policy with its demands for deregulation, privatization, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of “labor flexibility.”
Global businesses that reap the benefits of U.S. trade policy want the TPP to look like prior “free trade agreements” as much as possible. And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers: it looks as if, once again, the global corporations are having too much influence in the process. And working families may once again get left behind.
PAYCHECK DECEPTION
With more money pouring into politics from big corporations than ever before, it’s crucial that working families are able to protect our own interests. “Paycheck deception” laws being proposed would create burdensome restrictions that interfere with union members’ rights to participate in the political and legislative process. These laws also weaken the ability of working people to advance working family issues such as legislation that would create jobs and stop job outsourcing.
WORKERS COMP
Workers’ compensation consistently fails to protect the basic rights of injured and ill workers, most particularly their rights to health, economic security, fair process and to be treated with dignity. Millions of workers across the country face the unjust denial of their claims or unconscionable delays in accessing medical care or wage replacement, with devastating effects on health, well-being, and financial security. Even when workers obtain benefits, these are often inadequate to meet basic needs. Many workers also have to deal with retaliation from their employers for reporting their injuries and illnesses. Additionally the processes within workers’ compensation systems can be exceedingly complex, opaque and dehumanizing which imposes additional strain on injured and ill workers and their families.
With rare exceptions, mainstream discussion of workers’ compensation focuses on the high cost of workers’ compensation and on the issue of workers’ fraud (even though multiple studies have revealed that worker fraud is found in less than 2% of all cases and fraud committed by insurance companies, employers, and medical providers far exceeds workers’ fraud). The current prevailing narrative benefits industry interests and creates an environment unsympathetic to workers. This has the impact of creating a culture of shame that discourages so many injured and ill workers from filing and pursuing legitimate claims. It also makes politically possible the recurrence of anti-worker legislative reform in the area of workers’ compensation.
We need to make the comp system more accessible for injured and ill workers on an immediate basis. We also need to stop the increasingly brutal anti-worker reforms in workers’ compensation. Finally, workers’ compensation is broken and we need proactive and comprehensive reform to build a system(s) that better meet(s) the needs of injured and ill workers. Currently little consensus exists on solutions/alternatives- Should we implement reforms at a state level or a national level? Should we try and reform the existing comp system or at least parts of it? Should we abolish the workers’ compensation system altogether and replace it with a new system? There are endless complications, questions as well as permutations and combinations to consider when thinking of reform in comp. However various reform ideas have been proposed, and should be examined more closely so that a growing consensus may emerge at least on certain basic principles. We urgently need to start moving towards a system that better advances the rights of injured and ill workers.
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE
With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. This briefing paper details the positive impact of raising the minimum wage – and indexing it to inflation so that it does not continue to fall in real value every year – on working families, local businesses and state economies. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.
OUR MOTIVE. OUR PEOPLE.
WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO SHARE MORE. CLICK THE BUTTON TO FIND OUT HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION!
