|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
****JavaScript
based drop down DHTML menu generated by Visual QuickMenu Pro. (OpenCube
Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Current News
Freeman Brown: No More Limbo for Workers’ Rights - Roll Call
25-February-2010
The war on working people has a new battleground: the National Labor Relations Board. For a full year, hostile Senators have blocked or watered down nearly every key piece of legislation America’s workers need — from labor law and health care reform to creating good, green jobs and regulating the finance industry.
The recent derailment of fully qualified nominations to the NLRB laid down the gauntlet, proving that big business special interests and their friends in Congress are against any attempt to level the playing field for the middle class.
Right before the recess, a whole slate of President Barack Obama’s appointees were confirmed by the Senate, with the exception of a package of three nominees to the NLRB, the agency tasked with protecting and promoting the rights of workers to form unions and collectively bargain.
Long overdue progress for workers came to a screeching halt because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and their anti-worker allies in the Senate manufactured controversy around one of the NLRB nominees, Craig Becker. The highly respected labor law practitioner, professor and practicing attorney before the U.S. Supreme Court is a perfect fit for the job. So why was an all-out war waged against Becker? He’s too pro-union. Translation: He’ll actually uphold the law.
The truth is Becker’s opponents simply don’t believe workers should be able to combat exploitation on the job by forming a union. So why would they want to see the agency charged with protecting workers’ rights fully functioning?
With President Barack Obama’s nominees defeated, America’s workers continue to pay the cost. The board will continue to hobble along as it has for the past two years. Stuck with just two members, every critical case at the national level is frozen. The delays for some cases are beyond reasonable — two dozen cases have been pending for more than four years. Nor will the board review and reconsider the damaging legal precedents established by the Bush administration’s board. This means that millions of workers who saw their right to form a union revoked by the Bush board — like the nurses and professionals wrongly labeled as supervisors — must continue to work without job security and a voice to improve their working conditions.
Here’s the bottom line: We need a fully functioning NLRB. Every day without one leaves hard-working men and women vulnerable to unfair labor practices that strip them of their right to organize and bargain for a fair shot at the American Dream.
How can that happen? The president must flex his constitutional authority to appoint his NLRB nominees and give workers the protection they’ve gone so long without. Obama missed a great opportunity over this past recess to move on from this debate. A recess appointment would not be a radical use of executive power. In fact, he would just be following the precedent laid out by his predecessors. Every commander in chief dating back to Jimmy Carter has made recess appointments to the NLRB. Ronald Reagan made a whopping 243 recess appointments, George H.W. Bush made 77, Bill Clinton made 140 and George W. Bush made 171.
Obama shouldn’t make the same mistake again. Instead of starting from scratch and giving workers’ rights opponents another opportunity to block exemplary candidates, he must stop the cycle of inaction.
Indeed, America’s working families shouldn’t have to wait any longer. Their rights took a beating under the Bush administration, and with Obama, saw an opportunity for hope and change. In today’s climate of economic insecurity, now is not the time for the labor board to be handicapped. Our nation’s workers have given more than their fair share of sacrifices and patience. They are playing by the rules, want to rebuild the economy and are willing to work harder. They deserve better than Washington gridlock and ideological impasses.
The obstructionist minority in the Senate has made it clear that it does not want the labor board to function in its role as a protector of workers. It’s now up to the Obama administration to stand up to them — and get this fundamental agency back to work.
Kimberly Freeman Brown is the executive director of the labor policy and advocacy organization American Rights at Work.
| | | Under-30 Americans: The next new dealers - The Washington Post
25-February-2010
Young Americans are the linchpin of a new progressive era in American politics. So why aren't Democrats paying more attention to them?
The relative strength of conservatives in American politics since the 1980s was built on generational change: Voters whose views had been shaped by the New Deal were gradually replaced with the more cautious souls who came of age after FDR. Enter the Millennials -- generally defined as Americans born in 1981 or after. They are, without question, the most liberal generation since those New Dealers, and they could transform our politics for decades.
Yet this will happen only if progressive politicians start noticing their very best friends in the electorate. Progressives who doubt this should spend time with the exhaustive portrait of the Millennials that Pew Research Center released Wednesday. The study underscored the generation's "distinctiveness," and a big part of that distinctiveness is how progressive younger Americans are compared with the rest of the country.
For one thing, they are not allergic to the word "liberal." Americans under 30 include the largest proportion of self-described liberals and the smallest proportion of self-described conservatives of any age group: 29 percent of the under-30s called themselves liberal, compared with 28 percent who called themselves conservative.
"In every other age group," Pew notes, "far more described their views as conservative than liberal."
Among Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), the conservative advantage over liberals was 38 percent to 20 percent. Among baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964), conservatives led 43 percent to 18 percent. Among those born in 1945 or before -- Pew uses the classic "Silent Generation" tag -- the conservative advantage was 45 to 15 percent. (Moderates and a few respondents who refused a label made up the remainder in all groups.)
The difference in self-labeling reflects differences in attitudes. It's well-known that younger voters are more liberal on social issues, particularly gay rights. But their liberalism also includes sympathy for activist government. Fifty-three percent of Millennials said that "government should do more to solve problems." In every other age group, pluralities preferred the alternative statement offered by the pollsters, that "government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals."
"Millennials," the report concludes, "are significantly less critical of government on a number of dimensions than are other age cohorts."
Scott Keeter, a principal author of the report, said that while individuals often become more conservative as they get older, not all generations start off as liberal as the Millennials have. "Many in Generation X came of age in the Reagan years and started out as conservatives," he said. Baby boomers, he added, are more conservative than they were in the 1970s, but older boomers "retain a distinctively Democratic tilt."
Though not the whole story, demographic factors help account for the Millennials' progressive leanings: Census data cited by Pew show that 61 percent of Millennials are white, compared with 70 percent of Americans age 30 and over. This means that political outreach to the young will require particular attention to Hispanics (19 percent of Millennials) and African Americans (14 percent).
For Democrats looking ahead to this fall's election, the Pew study has some disturbing news.
It's true that Millennials are the most Democratic age group in the electorate -- they voted for Barack Obama by 2 to 1. Their turnout rate relative to older voters was higher in 2008 than in any election since 1972, the first presidential contest in which 18-year-olds could vote.
But Pew notes that since 2008, the Millennials' "enthusiasms" have "cooled" -- "for Obama and his message of change, for the Democratic Party and, quite possibly, for politics itself."
Obama's personal ratings among the Millennials remain very high -- three-fourths have a favorable view of the president -- but his job-approval rating has slipped from 73 percent a year ago to 57 percent this month. In the early months of last year, Democrats had a 29-point Millennial advantage over the Republicans. By the end of the year, their lead had been cut to 14 points.
That still keeps the 18-to-29s the electorate's most Democratic age group. But Democrats face disaster this fall and real problems in 2012 if the Millennials become disaffected from politics and if the Republicans continue to erode the Democrats' generational edge.
And what will Democrats do about it? Politicians have a bad habit in midterm elections: They concentrate on older folks, assuming younger voters will stay home on Election Day. This may be rational most of the time, but it is a foolish bet for Democrats and liberals this year. The young helped them rise to power and can just as easily usher them to early retirements. Obama cannot afford to break their hearts.
| | | Spirited debate unfolds at health care summit - CNN
25-February-2010
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama and Republican and Democratic leaders engaged in a spirited but civil debate at a health care summit Thursday, finding agreement on some issues such as high costs but not much common ground on how to achieve reform.
In opening remarks, Obama said that "it is absolutely critical to begin now moving on what is one of the biggest drags on the economy."
The situation affects not just people without health insurance but also those who have it, Obama said.
"The problem is not getting better," he said. "It is getting worse."
Obama called on Republican and Democratic leaders at the much-publicized summit not to "focus on where we differ but focus on where we agree."
Live updates from the health care summit
Highlights of Obama's plan
Video: Partisan rift on health care
Key lawmakers on health care
Video: Dying for health coverage
RELATED TOPICS
Health Care Reform
U.S. Senate
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Barack Obama
The differences were evident though in what each side believes should happen next.
In opening remarks for Republicans, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said his party wants to focus on health care costs. Alexander urged the president and Democrats to scrap current legislation and "start over."
But Democrats said that wouldn't happen, adding Americans cannot wait.
"For them, they don't have time for us to start over," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in her opening comments.
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said there's a major philosophical difference between the two sides over who should be in charge of the health care system -- the government or private industry.
"There's so much in the bills you have supported that puts so much control in Washington," Kyl said to Obama.
Critics have said the nationally televised six-hour summit will amount to little but a public relations stunt.
"This is about theater," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, before the meeting began. "This is not about substance unfortunately."
Watch Cornyn dismiss summit before it starts
Obama addressed that concern in his opening remarks.
"I hope this isn't political theater where people are playing to the camera," he said.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said earlier Thursday that the president wants to hear what Republicans have to say.
"It makes sense to have everybody in the same room," Gibbs said on CNN's "American Morning." "We're going to have a big table. We're going to listen to a lot of ideas."
Watch Gibbs point to progress on health care
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, urged Republicans to present their proposals, saying, "If you have a better plan ... let's hear it. We're ready to listen."
Obama said Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that costs have to be contained.
"It's absolutely true that if all we're doing is adding more people to a broken system, then costs will continue to skyrocket," he said.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who's a physician, cited several ways to cut costs, including focusing on disease prevention and management as well as cracking down on fraud.
Coburn also blasted what he called "extortion" behind frivolous lawsuits that he said make doctors victims of the legal system.
"A large number of the tests we order every day are not for the patients, they're for the doctors," Coburn said.
As legislators prepared Wednesday for the meeting, there did not appear to be much mood for compromise on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, a key author of the Senate health care bill, told reporters Wednesday that if Republicans continue to demand that Democrats scrap their health care proposals and start over, "then there's nothing to talk about."
"If you expect me to start all over on this, there's really not much point in this, 'cause we're not going to start over," the Connecticut Democrat said.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, argued that's exactly what Republicans want.
"Unless they're willing to do that, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine a scenario under which we can reach agreement because we don't think we ought to pass a 2,700-page bill that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy," McConnell said.
Dodd said Democrats and Republicans could find common ground in some areas, such as a Republican push to allow insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Dodd called the GOP proposal "a legitimate issue" but added that Democrats already have a version of that proposal in their legislation.
Gibbs expressed confidence Thursday that a bill will pass.
"We're very close to health care reform for the American people," he said.
Three top Democratic sources told CNN the new goal is to pass the final legislation by the end of March or else Congress will have to move back to other issues such as job creation and unfinished spending bills.
The summit is taking place across the street from the White House in the Garden Room at Blair House. It's airing live on CNN.
Watch the summit, then share your reaction
Obama's opening comments were followed by remarks from Republican and Democratic members chosen by their colleagues. The summit discussions will be based on four themes -- controlling costs, enacting insurance reforms, reducing the deficit and expanding coverage.
Obama made health care reform the domestic priority during his first year in office, but after Democrats lost their crucial 60th vote in the Senate recently, they were forced to rethink their strategy.
Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in last month's special election to serve the remainder of the late Ted Kennedy's Senate term.
Obama on Monday unveiled a blueprint for his compromise health care plan, which closely resembles the bill that emerged from the Senate last year.
The White House said the president's proposal would extend coverage to 31 million Americans. If enacted, Obama's plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.
Obama's plan does not include a government-run public health insurance option, which is in the House bill but not in the Senate version. Liberal Democrats support the public option, but Republicans and some moderate Democrats fiercely oppose it.
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday she had "great optimism" ahead of the meeting.
But she declined to give any specifics about how Democrats will proceed on the health care overhaul. She also sidestepped questions about Democrats' plans to use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to bypass GOP opposition and pass a health care bill.
Watch what's at stake at the health care summit
"I'm going there to talk about substance," she said. "We agree that we should have universal access to coverage, with affordability for the middle class and accountability for the insurance companies. That, to me, is what the subject is about tomorrow."
But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Democrats did talk Wednesday morning about using "reconciliation" to move health care legislation. He said Democrats anticipate the issue will come up at Thursday's summit.
Reconciliation is a process, limited to budget-related bills, that bypasses the Senate rule of 60 votes being needed to end debate. By using reconciliation, only a majority vote would be needed to advance a bill.
McConnell warned the political consequences would be severe if Democrats moved forward without GOP support.
Pointing to the backlash over the special deal in the Senate bill for Nebraska's Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, to cover his state's Medicaid costs, McConnell said, "If they think the American people are mad at them now, they haven't seen anything yet."
The Senate majority leader pointed out this week that reconciliation has been used more than 20 times since 1981, by both parties.
In his opening remarks Thursday, Republican spokesman Alexander urged Democrats not to use reconciliation and ram the measure through Congress.
| | | P&W appeals ruling on closing - New Haven Register
25-February-2010
The fate of Pratt & Whitney’s engine overhaul and repair operations in Cheshire and East Hartford went back to court Wednesday, as the manufacturer filed an appeal of the recent court decision that blocked its plan to close the plants.
“Our appeal will address the errors in the court’s analysis of the collective bargaining agreements and the court’s conclusion,” said company spokesman Greg Brostowicz. “We genuinely believe that we negotiated in good faith and we made every reasonable effort to keep these jobs in Connecticut.”
Union leaders, in response, said the company should work with employees to find a resolution rather than appeal the court ruling. Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corp., first announced plans to shut down the Cheshire plant and a related East Hartford division in September.
The decision would have moved 1,000 jobs out of state and immediately drew criticism from the union representing workers as well as state officials. The union subsequently sued, claiming the company did not try hard enough to save the jobs.
On Feb. 5, U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a permanent injunction preventing the company from moving the jobs to Columbus, Ga., Japan and Singapore.
Brostowicz said the company was awaiting a final decision, which came Feb. 17, before filing its appeal. The final decision upheld much of the Feb. 5 ruling, he said.
Following Pratt & Whitney’s filing Wednesday in U.S. District Court, company officials have 14 days to make another court filing further detailing the appeal.
The appeal came a day after Pratt & Whitney announced it will eliminate 163 union jobs in Connecticut — 119 in Cheshire, the rest in East Hartford — by March 12 due to a slowdown in business.
James Parent, chief negotiator for the union representing workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, criticized the company again Wednesday.
“They won’t win an appeal; the judge’s decision was sound and the evidence was overwhelming,” he said in a statement. “They should stop wasting time and money and start working with us. Acting recklessly with people’s lives is irresponsible. The company needs to take a hard look at themselves; things have gotten ugly.”
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who urged the court to block the plant closures, said he, too, is disappointed the company is appealing the court’s decision.
“This decision will simply add cost and friction with minimal prospects of success in overturning a powerful and persuasive judicial ruling,” he said in a statement. “The company would seem better served by seeking common ground with its workers rather than extending this conflict in the courts.”
Contact Cara Baruzzi at cbaruzzi@newhavenregister.com or 203-789-5748.
| | | Rell Lobbies Business Community To Support BRAC-Like Commission - ct news junkie
25-February-2010
In an unexpected appearance at Wednesday’s Connecticut Business & Industry Association event, Gov. M. Jodi Rell urged business leaders to support her plan to create a new commission to look at restructuring state government.
“We have to get our spending under control because we don’t have the money, but getting our state government to do something about it, is frankly a constantly frustrating battle of wills,” Rell said.
“I proposed a new way of dealing with the budget and I called for a budget cutting panel based on what many of us know as the BRAC (Base Closure and Realignment) Commission,” Rell said. “To take the politics out of the equation.”
Rell admitted that when she first proposed this some political pundits rolled their eyes and others said she’s just kicking it down the road. She said those political pundits and columnists are missing the point.
She said when the BRAC Commission was formed to close military bases they knew Congress would be unable to handle the task of deciding which bases should close.
“There was no horse trading, no log rolling, no powerful members calling in the favors and it worked,” Rell said.
She said it will also work in changing the discussion on the state budget and help take politics out of the equation.
“We have a state government unable to make the decisions required to make itself affordable,” Rell said. “It may be the only way for us to make real changes to a state budget.”
The changes proposed by the 24-member commission would have a greater and lasting impact than any deficit mitigation plan or any two-year budget that could ever be offer, Rell said.
John Rathgeber, CEO and President of CBIA, said Rell’s proposed commission deserves the support of the General Assembly. He urged business leaders to talk to their legislators about the commission.
Christine Stuart photo
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
“We need to take seriously this concept,” Rathgeber said. “The proposal deserves serious consideration.”
Rathgeber’s colleague Joe Brennan said CBIA supports the idea because “we need to do something different to break the logjam.” He said it’s the uncertainty of Connecticut’s long term policies and budget priorities that is driving business out of the state.
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman also addressed to packed room of business leaders Wednesday and talked about the fiscal outlook for the state.
She said the budget deficit for this fiscal year remains around $515 million. She said she doesn’t expect that number to change much on March 1 when she releases her latest projections.
“There are no magic bullets to solve the problem,” Wyman said.
There are three ways to solve the budget crisis: spending cuts, borrowing, or tax increases.
“We need structural changes,” Wyman said before promoting her idea to take any surplus money on a monthly basis and deposit it in the Rainy Day Fund.
She said she hasn’t asked Rell yet what she will propose as part of her budget mitigation plan due by March 3, but the “rumors are they will take some of the money from the Rainy Day Fund they planned to use in the second year of the biennium.”
When asked what this will mean, Wyman said it means there will be more holes to fill in the following fiscal year.
On Tuesday, Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said he’s not concerned with taking money from the Rainy Day Fund and moving it up to cover the deficit in 2010 as long as the cuts are being made in the 2011 budget. He said it’s difficult when you’re down to the last four months of the fiscal year to make any cuts to the current budget.
| | | Union President Negotiating With Shaw's On Severance Packages - Courant.com
25-February-2010
The Hartford Courant
3:34 PM EST, February 24, 2010
The president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 371 is taking a break from negotiations with Stop & Shop today as he tries to save jobs and arrange severance packages for unionized Shaw's workers who will be displaced.
Last week, Shaw's owner, SuperValu Inc. of Minneapolis, announced it was pulling out of Connecticut and selling its 18 stores. The grocery chain's 2,200 part-time and full-time workers are currently covered by a Local 371 contract.
Brian Petronella, president of the local union, said he's negotiating with Shaw's this afternoon on severance packages.
"I'm hoping that Shaw's provides the people that are going to lose their jobs with some type of package. At the very least we want them to keep their medical coverage going for awhile so they don't have to pick up COBRA," he said, referring to a federal program under which former employees can temporarily keep their former employers' health coverage, usually at a higher price.
"They have an obligation to take care of these people," Petronella said.
Shaw's had no immediate comment before the talks.
A deli worker at a Shaw's store that's being converted to a nonunion ShopRite said Wednesday that Shaw's officials are keeping workers in the dark about what will happen next.
"They haven't said anything about when the store will reopen as a ShopRite," said the deli worker at the East Hartford store, who declined to give her name.
"If they offered me a job, I'd stay — even if they are nonunion. I would probably have no choice. You need a job."
The mood among store workers is not optimistic: Most employees doubt the new ShopRite owner will keep them on the payroll, said the deli worker.
"As far as we're concerned, we are totally gone," she said. "At this point, we're all getting laid off. They [Shaw's] haven't told us otherwise. They haven't told us if the new owners are going to interview us. We're just going along day by day."
Stop & Shop, which is in contract talks with UFCW throughout New England, and is operating under an expired contract, will acquire five Shaw's stores — in Newington, East Hampton, Vernon, Darien and New Fairfield. Workers there will be represented by Local 371, but must reapply and interview for their old jobs.
New Jersey-based Wakefern Food Corp plans to convert 11 Shaw's stores to ShopRite or PriceRite locations. Wakefern, which operates as a retail cooperative and handles marketing and distribution, told the union last week its store owners will interview Shaw's employees.
Five of the Wakefern conversions — stores in Hamden, Stratford, Canton, West Hartford and Enfield — will continue as union shops, Petronella said, and are expected to interview existing workers.
The remaining Wakefern conversions — Clinton, East Hartford, Fairfield, Southbury, Wallingford and Willimantic — are being purchased by ShopRite or PriceRite operators who are not expected to operate union shops, Petronella said.
"Whether they're going to interview or hire people, I don't know," Petronella said today.
For the people who are at the nonunion Wakefern stores, Petronella said, "I'm hoping that down the road, those folks will have a chance to interview at Stop & Shop and union ShopRites." P
Negotiators for Stop & Shop and the UFCW are continuing their talks today in Rhode Island. Talks showed some progress but the sides remain apart, Petronella said. Stop & Shop spokeswoman Faith Weiner was more optimistic than Petronella in her assessment of Wednesday's negotiations.
"We met all day yesterday [Tuesday] and worked primarily on contract language issues and made significant progress," she said.
"We are continuing to meet today and narrowing the gap on remaining items -- regarding health and welfare, and pension and wages. We are committed to staying at the table and reaching an agreement and negotiating in good faith."
| | | Advocates Clash With Business Leaders Over Paid Sick Days - CT News junkie
25-February-2010
Proponents of a bill that allows employees to earn up to five paid sick days per year held a press conference at the Capitol Wednesday, the same day as more than a couple hundred business leaders from around the state gathered to talk about job growth.
As proponents of the bill talked about how it’s actually good for business and public health, opponents of the legislation said it was an “anti-business” bill that will drive more companies out of the state.
“This bill has been worked out over time and in my view is a common sense approach to a desperate situation,” Sen. John Kissel, a Republican from Enfield, said Wednesday. Kissel has been one of the only Republicans in the past to support the proposal, which puts him in direct conflict with his party’s leadership.
Christine Stuart photo
Rep. Larry Cafero and Sen. John McKinney
“This is a job killing bill,” Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, said Wednesday.
In a year when everyone agrees job growth and job creation is the most important issue facing the state, Democrats are introducing “unfriendly business mandates,” he said.
This is the fourth year the bill has been proposed.
This year’s bill addresses employers with 50 or more employees, so it carves out small businesses, Kissel said. And it‘s not cumulative, so you can’t carry the days over from one year to another.
“It’s not going to drive businesses away,” Kissel said.
Sen. Edith Prague, chairwoman of the Labor Committee and the bill’s main proponent, agreed.
Christine Stuart photo
Wanda Cobbs
Holding up an article from Forbes magazine, Prague said it costs employers $180 billion a year in 2007 by not giving their employees paid sick time. “Besides that when workers go to work sick are they productive, can they do their job? I don’t think so,” Prague said.
“Folks who say paid sick time is going to chase businesses out of this state really don’t have any facts to back that up,” Prague said.
Wanda Cobbs, a West Hartford school bus driver, knows all to well what it’s like to go to work sick. Last December her son and daughter got H1N1 and she was forced to take time off work to care for them. In the process she was infected with H1N1, but couldn’t afford to take any more time off, so she went to work sick.
“For more than a week I drove a school bus while I suffered from swine flu,” Cobbs said. None of the kids on her bus caught the flu from her, but Cobbs believes “nobody should have to go to work sick.”
Rep. Selim Noujaim, a Republican from Waterbury, said over the past 10 years he’s seen 18 companies he used to do business with move or go out of business.
He said paid sick days is harmful to employees, not employers, because it’s the employees who will lose their jobs if the legislature passes this bill.
“Another mandate on employers means they will no longer be able to operate in the state,” Noujaim said.
Christine Stuart photo
Rep. Selim Noujaim and Sen. John McKinney
And while the bill may apply only to companies with 50 or more employees, Noujaim doesn’t think it would be long before it applied to other small businesses.
But Kissel warned it’s also a public health issue.
According to the Institute of Women’s Policy Research 8 million Americans went to work with H1N1 last year and an estimated 7 million people caught H1N1 from a co-worker.
When asked what they believe will help them get the bill passed this year, Prague said the H1N1 epidemic. She said the epidemic showed that not everyone has the ability to stay home from work when they are sick.
“ I think our school bus driver said it all,” Prague said
| | |
Visit
Our News Archive... Click Here
|
|
|
