EFCA

With Assist From Karl Rove, Anti-EFCA Group Targets Evan Bayh

Brian Beutler | August 4, 2009, 6:11PM

This will warm the cockles of your heart. An anti-union group has launched a campaign against Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) for his past support for labor, and urging him to oppose Employee Free Choice Act. They're hitting him with radio ads, and 117 billboards, scattered across the state of Indiana, telling passersby "Don't let Evan Bayh kill jobs."

What's interesting about this particular campaign, though, is that it's sponsor--the Economic Freedom Alliance--is paying Karl Rove a pretty penny. In the first half of 2009, the group raised about $520,000, and spent about $550,000--$100,000 of which went to Rove's consulting firm.

See Think Progress for more. You'll be unsurprised to learn that a group that teams up with Karl Rove isn't exactly playing it straight when it comes to EFCA.

Arlen Specter

Specter: I've Been Perfectly Consistent On EFCA

Brian Beutler | July 29, 2009, 10:12AM

Yes, that headline is accurate. In a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Specter defends his record on the Employee Free Choice Act as "consistent."

"My views on this subject have been consistent," Specter writes, "and suggestions to the contrary by those intending to run against me are incorrect."

The last half of this sentence is a jab at Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who's made an issue of Specter's unreliability. But the first half could raise the hackles of labor supporters, who might have noticed that Specter once cosponsored EFCA, then, under attack from the right, said he would support a filibuster of it, then switched parties and told a crowd of organizers that they'd be "satisfied" with his vote on the issue, though he still opposes card check.

As the good folks of PA2010 point out, Specter may have consistent, secretly held views. But his political positions have varied pretty wildly.

EFCA

Anti-EFCA Group To Target Webb, Warner Over August Recess

Brian Beutler | July 27, 2009, 5:14PM

Congressfolk won't just be getting an earful about health care over the August recess. The National Right To Work Committee will be pressuring Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) in the coming weeks to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act

"[W]orkers' rights will be trampled on by the U.S. Senate's action," said the group's president Mark Mix, who, in a statement, calls EFCA the "Card Check Forced Unionization Bill". Cute. But if Mix had been reading TPMDC he'd know that, earlier this month Senate negotiators deep-sixed card check from EFCA in an effort to woo people just like Webb and Warner.

Andy Stern

Stern: "It's Important That Both The House And Senate Consider Majority Signup"

Brian Beutler | July 21, 2009, 8:00AM

On Friday, the New York Times dropped a bombshell on the labor movement with a report that Senate negotiators had scotched a provision commonly known as 'card check'--which would permit workers to form a union when a majority of a business' employees sign an authorization form--from the Employee Free Choice Act.

Some labor officials played it cool when the news broke, but SEIU president Andy Stern insisted that he expected Congress to vote on the provision one way or another. Now, Stern's turning to his online supporters to make sure that happens.

"The New York Times reported on Friday that the Senate is considering dropping majority signup from the Employee Free Choice Act," Stern writes to a 100,000 person mailing list.

By giving employees the free choice to join unions - and not their bosses - majority signup allows workers to have a voice on the job.

Congress needs to hear about your support for majority signup. Sign my petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

You can read the entire letter below the fold. Stern wants Congress to consider majority sign up, but that could simply mean a vote on an amendment--card check as a stand-alone provision--as opposed to a vote on a bill with the provision already written into it. Union-sympathetic senators have apparently concluded that EFCA will fail if it includes card check, but a vote on the provision alone would at the very least put senators--particularly conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans--on the record.

Meanwhile, at the insistence of Blue Dogs, who'd rather not be forced to take a public stand, the House earlier this year reportedly decided not to consider EFCA until the Senate finishes work on the bill. There's certainly a significant number of House progressives who support the provision. But those progressives will have to speak up very loudly. If the Senate officially rejects the provision before the House takes up the legislation, it will be an extremely tough sell not to go the path of least resistance.

Read more »

Arlen Specter

In Wake Of Senate Compromise, EFCA Co-Sponsor Sestak Hits Specter

Brian Beutler | July 17, 2009, 7:43PM

Depending on whom you ask, the news that Senate Democrats have agreed to scrap card check from the Employee Free Choice Act is an acceptable compromise, or a knife in the labor movement's back, or both. But for Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), it's also an opportunity to remind voters of Sen. Arlen Specter's role in precipitating the compromise in the first place.

"As an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, I strongly support the legislation as it was originally written," says Sestak. "Arlen Specter, however, announced that he not only opposed Employee Free Choice, but would prevent it from coming to a fair up-or-down vote."

"Arlen will have to explain to working families across Pennsylvania why he took the side of every Senate Republican to oppose this legislation as originally written."

Since becoming a Democrat, Specter has softened on EFCA considerably. Last month, he told a crowd of union organizers, "I think you'll be satisfied with my vote on this issue on union organizing and on first contract just like you've been satisfied with the 22 times I voted for Davis Bacon."

But in his last days and weeks as a Republican--and in his first days as a Democrat--Specter, a former EFCA co-sponsor himself, sang a remarkably different tune. Facing a primary challenge from conservative Pat Toomey, Specter said he would oppose both EFCA, and a filibuster on the legislation. The move was a big blow to organized labor--one some in that movement won't soon forget.

You can read Sestak's full statement below the fold.

Read more »

House of Representatives

The Mark-Up, 07-17-2009

Brian Beutler | July 17, 2009, 6:15PM

TPMDC's roundup of the biggest initiatives on Capitol Hill.

• Health Care: Two House committees--Education and Labor, and Ways and Means--passed historic health care legislation today. But the Energy and Commerce committee still has a long way to go, and it's going to be a hard climb.
• Employee Free Choice: Union-friendly Senate Democrats have reportedly agreed to drop a key provision--majority sign-up--from the flagship labor legislation to win the support of skeptical, conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. But even if all Democrats are on board, with Sens. Kennedy and Byrd all but out of commission, EFCA still has a long way to go. The bill is anathema to Republicans like perhaps no other legislation on the Democratic agenda.

AFL-CIO

Stern: We Expect A Vote On Majority Signup

Brian Beutler | July 17, 2009, 9:35AM

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, weighs in more fully on a report that Democrats have agreed to jettison a key provision of the Employee Free Choice Act: "As we have said from day one, majority signup is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace," Stern says. "The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress."

AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale sought to downplay the news a bit, characterizing the compromise as a routine part of the legislative process. But the original Times report says that Democrats have "abandoned" the provision--commonly known as Card Check--altogether. Stern's statement suggests that a compromise on the provision itself might assuage him, calling for "a majority signup provision," but that dropping it completely won't fly.

Andy Stern

EFCA Compromise? Moderates To Embrace Labor Reform...Without Card Check

Brian Beutler | July 17, 2009, 9:21AM

The New York Times reports that several labor friendly Democrats, including Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have embraced an Employee Free Choice Act compromise to win the support of conservative Democrats. That compromise? Eliminating Card Check--the majority sign-up provision that would end the secret ballot process, and, labor leaders say, curb employer intimidation.

AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale tells Ben Smith: "[T]his is the normal process of how a bill becomes a law."

We are very optimistic about passing the strongest labor law reform since the Wagner Act -- one that lets workers choose to join a union without intimidation or harassment, ensures that workers who join a union get a first contract, and has meaningful penalties for violations.

But Andy Stern seems less than pleased, tweeting, "we expect a vote in the bill or by amendment on majority sign-up in both houses of Congress."

I'm told a fuller statement is on its way, but clearly this compromise won't go down without several spoons full of sugar.

Health Care

Labor Leaders To Meet Obama At White House This Afternoon

Brian Beutler | July 13, 2009, 11:57AM

President Obama will host key labor leaders at the White House this afternoon to discuss a number of pressing issues, including the Employee Free Choice Act and health care.

The administration has put EFCA on the back burner, focusing instead on issues like economic recovery, health care, and climate change--much to the dismay of the very people the President will meet with today. But that doesn't mean there's no common ground. Labor has by and large been on board with Obama's health care push, and have by and large succeeded at taking a key financing scheme--a tax on employer-provided health care benefits--off the table, at a time when Democrats are trying desperately to cover the trillion-dollar up front cost of a reform bill.

On hand today will be the labor presidents of the National Labor Coordinating Committee, which was formed earlier this year by AFL-CIO, Change to Win, and the National Education Association. More on the meeting as details emerge.

EFCA

SEIU Demands Nebraska, Arkansas TV Stations Pull Down Misleading "Employee Forced Choice Act" Ads

Brian Beutler | July 10, 2009, 10:53AM

The Service Employees International Union is demanding that television stations in Arkansas and Nebraska pull down ads calling on Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote against the "Employee Forced Choice Act."

"Your news network is running an advertisement sponsored by the Employee Freedom Action Committee," reads a letter the union sent to networks in both states, "which is demonstrably false and maliciously misleads viewers about unions and the Employee Free Choice Act."

In particular, the ad misleadingly refers to the "Employee Forced Choice Act."... The falsehoods and misrepresentations...warrant its immediate removal from the air.

The letter, which you can read here in full, explains the ads numerous distortions. The Employee Freedom Action Committee is the brainchild of notorious lobbyist Richard Berman, whose anti-union activities are well known to the labor movement.

Wal-Mart

Will Wal-Mart Cash In Support For Health Care Reform To Crush EFCA?

Brian Beutler | July 3, 2009, 12:03PM

One of the biggest developments on the health care front this week was Wal-Mart's decision to back an employer mandate as a major provision of reform legislation. The move rankled the Chamber of Commerce, which accused the retail giant of using the government to build competitive advantage against its competitors--all despite the fact that Wal-Mart is the Chamber's largest member. But liberals were by and large pretty happy with the development.

At least as far as health reform goes.

But Wal-Mart is a major stakeholder on a number of key issues, and some wonder whether the Arkansas-based behemoth will try to cash in their support for health reform with the White House when the focus in Washington eventually turns to employee free choice.

Labor sources, well-acquainted with Wal-Mart's anti-EFCA tactics, have suggested or acknowledged this concern to me in the days since the administration announced the deal--and as hard as it is to imagine Wal-Mart fighting that legislation harder than they already do, the sources say both sides may turn up the temperature in the fight over employee rights in the weeks and months ahead.

It's unclear where the basis of this concern lies--whether it comes from internal knowledge of Wal-Mart's negotiations with key health care players in Washington; or from an understanding of the company's incentives; or whether some in the labor movement are using this moment to launch a pre-emptive strike against their main EFCA opponent.

But either way, it's clear that the uneasy alliance between labor and Wal-Mart on the question of health reform does not translate into rapprochement on the issue of unionization. If anything, it makes the fight over that issue bloodier.

Labor

Murdered Security Guard's Union Asked For Bulletproof Vests, Never Got Them

Brian Beutler | June 11, 2009, 2:25PM

Stephen Johns, the 39-year old man who was murdered yesterday at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, wasn't just a Wackenhut-employed security officer. He was also a member of the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America--a union.

That union approached Wackenhut about the dangers Holocaust Museum officers face, and asked them to provide their employees with bulletproof vests. You can imagine how that turned out.

[D]uring contract negotiations with Wackenhut two years ago, the union pressed for company-issued protective vests. Although Wackenhut seemed open to the idea, vests have not been issued, Faye said.

"I hammered this in our negotiations two years ago because of how sensitive that museum is," he said. "Our guards needed more protection." He said that one of the guards at the museum was "verbally assaulted by one guy walking by, saying anti-Semitic remarks. For that reason, I made that the center of the negotiation."

Authorities said Johns was not wearing a protective vest.

EFCA

Labor: Chamber Gearing Up For 2010 Senate Fight

Brian Beutler | June 10, 2009, 2:49PM

Josh already noted this at the Mother Ship this morning, but Politico ran today with a story about the Chamber of Commerce's plans to raise $100 million as part of a campaign to "defend the free market system."

Privately, labor sources describe the move as the Chamber's opening salvo in the committee's campaign to disrupt the balance of power in the Senate--which they view as hostile to business--in the 2010 election. And there's more than just messaging to that--the Chamber's president made that pretty clear.

A public education ad buy defending the free enterprise system is in the works, as well as an issue advocacy program tied to the 2010 midterm elections.

"We're going to hold politicians accountable as we defend and advance economic freedom," [Chamber of Commerce President Tom] Donohue said.

Read more »

Andrew Ross Sorkin

Sorkin: I Apologize For 'Flip,' 'Unscripted' Comments

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 4:59PM

I've just heard back from New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin by phone and email. In a prepared statement, he walked back his comments on MSNBC considerably. "Boy did I touch the third rail! My off-handed comment was admittedly flip. I apologize for that. It was meant to provoke a conversation."

I did not mean to suggest that there are literally no successful companies that employ union workers. Of course there are! Your readers have provided a good list (though I might quibble with some of the names.)

I made the unscripted comment with my financial columnist hat on in the context of the problems at GM. That's what the discussion was about on the program. And when you look at some of the once great iconic American industries that have faltered -- automobiles, airlines, steel, apparel, etc -- there is a fair question worth asking about whether those industries were helped or hurt by their unions. But let's leave that debate for another day.

Not sure if that will placate his critics, who were pretty livid about the whole episode, but I guess we'll see.

Regarding the similarity between the question he posed the hosts of Morning Joe and a question former General Electric CEO Jack Welch posed to economist Joseph Stiglitz during a panel discussion Sorkin moderated, he said, "I'm afraid to say I hadn't remembered it until you sent me your post."

Sorkin said he hadn't expected such a strong response and even suggested he was sympathetic to the very people who were most upset by his words.

Andrew Ross Sorkin

SEIU's Stern: Contra Sorkin, 'Unionized Companies Are Driving Force In Our Economy'

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 4:17PM

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union answers Andrew Ross Sorkin's question with a question of his own. "Unionized companies are a driving force in our economy, from Kaiser Permanente to Securitas," Stern said in a statement to TPMDC.

The bigger question this country is really asking right now is how do we define a successful company? Is it a company that turns a profit by driving down employee wages successful? Is cutting off benefits or putting people out of work to improve the bottom line for shareholders a business model we as Americans want to embrace? Are we going to embrace the Wal-Mart model as the standard of success, or are we going to raise the bar and rebuild the middle class in this country?

We think it's time to have a serious national discussion about what we want the future of our economy to look like--and the voices of women and men who work are critical to that conversation. That's why we're supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill to help create an economy in which companies succeed based on the quality of their services, not on their willingness to exploit or silence workers.

Read more »

Andrew Ross Sorkin

American Rights At Work: You Can't Name Successful, Unionized Businesses? Look Here!

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 3:52PM

If you want more information than you'll ever need on the wealth of successful business employing unionized workers, you need look no farther than the group American Rights at Work. Every year they publish the Labor Day List, to "recognize successful partnerships between employers and their employees' labor unions that are working well in the global economy."

You can download the 2008 report here (PDF), and see a full list of past reports here.

(Note that because the most recent Labor Day List came out last year, the companies highlighted in it don't necessarily meet the criteria we've set up for our growing list of profitable, unionized companies.)

I asked Nikki Daruwala, who directs the Socially Responsible Business Program at the group American Rights at Work, why the perception that unions always hurt businesses persists if all this information is so easily accessible.

"I think it has to do with the fact that people have this knee-jerk reaction--that union and management are on the opposite poles," she said. "They're not open to the idea that there are very successful partnerships...helping the companies, helping society."

AFL-CIO

AFL-CIO: Sorkin's Comments 'Ignorant,' Vested Interests 'Don't Seem To Know Who's In Unions'

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 3:38PM

I just got off the phone with Nancy Mills, the Deputy Chief of Staff for AFL-CIO, who had some thoughts for us on the substance and the implication of Sorkin's statements on MSNBC.

"One of the things it points out is that the American public in general, and those who have an axe to grind, who are promoting this ignorance, don't seem to know who's in unions." Mills said.

She noted that there's no shortage of companies with successful worker-employer partnerships adding that "People think of these as good places, successful, interesting, and they don't stop and think that they might be unionized, because there hasn't been a picket line."

I asked her if unions, or the greater labor movement have any culpability for allowing this predominant line of thinking to go largely unchallenged. She noted that there's a long standing debate within the labor movement about the usefulness of spending dues dollars on messaging to non-union members, and that the big federations have spent the last several years fending off attacks from anti-union interests leaving little in the way of time or resources to promote a positive message.

Late update: You can read Sorkin's apology here.

Andrew Ross Sorkin

GE's Welch Used Same Line About Unions On Panel Sorkin Moderated

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 2:47PM

As we've been reporting, earlier today, New York Times business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin appeared on MSNBC and seemed to question the entire idea of unionization. "Name a successful unionized company. Think. You're going to go to [commercial] break before you come up with one."

Last week, Sorkin moderated a forum, hosted by Vanity Fair and Bloomberg, which included, among others, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch and Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

During the discussion, the Welch trotted out roughly the same that Sorkin brought on to Morning Joe against Stiglitz "[G]ive me a highly successful, unionized American industry," he demanded.

Here's the entirety of the exchange:

WELCH: Joe, do you think that if we trace back things like this, they're going to give us a more competitive America to compete in the global world? Now, do we - should be retained good wages? Should we have benefits? Should we have enlightened management to take care of workers? Absolutely.

But should we get all organized again and get all these work rules and have General Motors and U.S. Steel and the airlines and all these businesses - give me a highly successful, unionized American industry.

STIGLITZ: Well, I do think that - that workers who are treated better or more productive.

WELCH: I agree.

STIGLITZ: Now - now, one of the things that has induced a lot of companies to treat the workers well is the fear of unions coming in. So it has been an incentive device that has, I think, encouraged better treatment of the workers at by some of the non-union firms.Well, I do think that - that workers who are treated better or more productive.

More on the answer to Welch's (and now Sorkin's) question in a moment. Funny how that line made it from the lips of the former chairman and CEO of GE on to a GE-owned cable network. I'm sure Welch is extremely proud.

Late update: You can read Sorkin's apology here.

Andrew Ross Sorkin

Hoffa: Sorkin and Morning Joe Show Complete Failure To Understand

Brian Beutler | June 3, 2009, 2:27PM

New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin went on MSNBC this morning and set off the entire labor movement.

"Name a successful unionized company. Think. You're going to go to [commercial] break before you come up with one. And that's the problem," he said before a room full of unionized NBC employees.

Unions are aghast. "Sorkin and the Morning Joe crew just showed their complete failure to understand how unions contribute to the success of the American economy by blindly assuming that unionized companies haven't been profitable in the last year," said James Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in a statement to TPMDC.

Off the top of my head I can give you several Teamster-represented companies who continue to thrive, despite the economic downturn, but there are thousands more: UPS, Eight O'Clock Coffee, Coca-Cola Enterprises, PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. The Morning Joe team really should be embarrassed for showing their lack of knowledge on the subject.

And that's just on the record.

Read more »

Andy Stern

Did The White House Hang Workers Out To Dry In The CA Sun?

Brian Beutler | May 21, 2009, 4:52PM

When the California government decided to address his state's budget crisis by slashing pay for home health care workers, and cutting three-quarters of a billion dollars in Medi-Cal healthcare programs for the poor, the White House was furious. So was the SEIU. This is a recession, they reasoned, and those are poor and working class people. Citing the terms of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act, the Obama administration threatened to withhold $6.8 billion in federal stimulus funds unless the California legislature revoked the wage cut.

Obama "went straight for the most direct way to leverage California from the federal government," writes a source with knowledge of deliberations, "it was a big play, no question."

The right was furious about SEIU's involvement in negotiations, as were California government officials. But their concerns were laid to rest today when Washington decided to back down.

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Specter's Slow Move To The Left Begins?

Brian Beutler | May 15, 2009, 2:26PM

When Arlen Specter became a Democrat nearly three weeks ago, everyone in Washington was extremely "surprised," but nobody was really all that surprised. Specter had been taking a beating from the right for, among other things, supporting the stimulus bill. He had lost the confidence of many in his party and, to ward off attackers, he was tacking steadily to the right to protect himself from a primary challenge he nonetheless seemed poised to lose.

So he became a Democrat. The move made sense as a matter of both Senate and electoral politics. Specter fits in just as well among the significant ranks of conservative Senate Democrats as he does among the ever-shrinking ranks of moderate Republicans, and his move into the majority renews what had been his dwindling hopes of re-election.

But then, unthinkably, he doubled down on all of the positions he'd taken as a threatened Republican. He bucked his new party on health care, reiterated his freshly minted objection to the Employee Free Choice Act (a bill he once wholly endorsed), and he flatly opposed the nomination of Dawn Johnsen, who President Obama has nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Now, though, he's showing some signs of easing up on the Republicanisms.

Read more »

Blanche Lincoln

Will Unions Back A Green Candidate Against Blanche Lincoln?

Brian Beutler | May 11, 2009, 6:39PM

The cause of Employee Free Choice been dealt a number of difficult blows in the last several weeks, but perhaps the hardest came from Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) in early April when she came out against EFCA. At the time she said, "[I] cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form."

Deliberations are underway between labor groups and key legislators who seek a compromise bill with enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster. But Lincoln, whose constituents include Wal-Mart, is situated to drive a hard bargain.

That is, of course, unless she thinks her job might be at stake. And it could be--or, at least, some influential people want her to think it could be. One senior labor official close to the situation told TPMDC that a general election challenge could be in the works. "I think that's a line people are preparing to cross."

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Labor Joins Sestak In Pressuring Specter

Brian Beutler | April 30, 2009, 6:40PM

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) may be a lone critic of Sen. Arlen Specter among Pennsylvania Democrats and party leaders, but if he looks past his colleagues he'll find a natural (though perhaps convenient and temporary) friend in labor. For now, Sestak is sending warning shots at Specter, pressuring him to get with the program, and groups like AFL-CIO and SEIU are doing the exact same thing. Especially vis-a-vis issues like health care and employee free choice.

Officially, AFL-CIO say they "look forward to continuing an open and honest debate with Senator Specter about the issues that are important to Pennsylvania and America."

"Sen. Specter," they say, "has said all along that he recognizes the need to reform our broken labor law system and we will continue to work with Congress to give workers back the freedom to form and join unions and pass legislation that stays true to the principals of the Employee free Choice Act."

And their Pennsylvania president agrees.

But Stewart Acuff, AFL-CIO's Director of Organizing hasn't been so timid.

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Can Harkin Write A Real Employee Free Choice Compromise?

Elana Schor | March 27, 2009, 5:49PM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) delivered a setback to the labor movement earlier this week when he vowed to support a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- but supporters of the union-organizing bill are proceeding undaunted with their grassroots lobbying efforts.

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, EFCA champion Tom Harkin (D-IA) has begun courting Republican supporters for a compromise deal, according to Roll Call. One suspects that a new organizing bill coming from Harkin, a stalwart progressive, would be more balanced between business and labor interests than the "compromise" being pushed by three corporate CEOs ... but that plan may be defining the right-ward end of what's doable.

Here's how Roll Call saw the lay of the land:

Read more »

NY-20

SEIU Launches New Ad In Special Election, Promoting Stimulus -- And Obama

Eric Kleefeld | March 26, 2009, 3:46PM

Organized labor is now making a big push for Democratic candidate Scott Murphy in the home stretch of the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's old House seat.

SEIU local 1199 has now launched this ad, attacking GOP candidate Jim Tedisco for opposing the stimulus bill, praising Murphy for supporting it -- and making sure to remind viewers that President Obama endorses Murphy:

According to the latest FEC filing, SEIU 1199's political action fund is spending $75,000 on this ad buy.

House of Representatives

Undercover Investigation Reveals Labor Department Fails Workers: Listen to the Calls Here

Elana Schor | March 25, 2009, 11:00AM

The House Education and Labor Committee is holding a hearing this morning on the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division -- which has utterly failed in its mission to protect workers from discrimination and exploitation, according to an undercover inquiry by Congress' investigative arm.

The inquiry, conducted during the Bush administration by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), involved a series of calls placed to Wage and Hour officials by GAO analysts posing as aggrieved workers. When the undercover GAO folks tried to seek help from the Labor Department to resolve employer issues, they were met with stonewalling ... and in some cases, outright rejection.

You can listen in to six of the undercover calls in question -- links are posted after the jump.

Read more »