Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 16, 2015)
Inside MEETING NOTICES See Page 4 Volume 116 Number 2 January 16, 2015 Portland, Oregon Labor-backed alliance to push bold agenda in Salem 2015 could be a breakthrough year for pro-worker legislation By DON McINTOSH Associate Editor Oregon’s five biggest labor organizations have united with civil rights and community groups in a new formal coalition to back a bold agenda in this year’s session of the Oregon Legislature. The coalition, known as Fair Shot for All, will cam- paign for a big minimum wage increase, a paid sick leave law, “ban the box” and racial profiling laws, and legislation to create a publicly-spon- sored retirement plan for workers. The package is an attempt to make the most of November 2014 electoral gains: Democrats now have 18 of 30 seats in the state senate and 35 of 60 in the state house, so they’re in a position to do something about worsening economic inequality. The groups in Fair Shot for All laid out their agenda publicly at a press conference Jan. 10, the same day University of Oregon released a report that shows a rapid increase in the number of low- wage jobs in Oregon. The report, “The High Cost of Low Wages in Oregon,” found that one fourth of Oregon’s workforce — 412,000 workers — are in “low-wage” occupations with a median an- nual income of under $12 an hour. The report also found that 197,000 working adults were receiv- ing food stamps as of January 2014. The Fair Shot for All coalition consists of Ore- gon AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Oregon AF- SCME), United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555, Oregon Education Associa- tion, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), PCUN, Urban League of Portland, Fam- ily Forward Oregon, Center for Intercultural Or- ganizing, CAUSA, Basic Rights Oregon, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, Oregon Action, and the Rural Organizing Project. And each mem- ber of the coalition is committing to helping pass all parts of a package of five proposals that are in- tended to counter growing inequality: may consider at least two proposals to increase Oregon’s minimum wage, which is currently $9.25 an hour. One would raise it to $15 over three years. Another would raise it to around $12. Either way, it would represent a big increase for more than a quarter of Oregon workers. Advo- cates also want to repeal a state law that prevents local jurisdictions from setting a minimum wage higher than the statewide minimum. To show sup- port for the campaign, the group 15 Now is or- ganizing a rally at the Capitol Jan. 24 at noon, co- sponsored by the Oregon AFL-CIO and over a dozen unions. The rally will be followed by a statewide gathering of minimum wage advocates. MINIMUM WAGE. Oregon AFL-CIO is playing the role of lead convener in efforts to get a big raise for low-wage Oregonians. Lawmakers PAID SICK DAYS. Family Forward Oregon will spearhead a campaign for a statewide paid sick days law. As introduced, the proposal would go farther than the ordinances passed in Portland and Eugene in that it would apply to all employ- ers, and would allow workers to take up to seven paid sick days per year. Workers would accrue the paid sick leave at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked, and could use it to recover at home from a contagious illness, for a doctors appoint- ment, or care for a sick child. Union construction firms would be exempt from the mandate, be- cause they employ workers through a hiring hall for typically short periods, and because their paid leave benefits are administered by a labor-man- agement trust, not by the employers themselves. RETIREMENT SAVINGS. Employer-pro- vided pensions are in steep decline, and around the country SEIU is taking the lead on a proposal (Turn to Page 2) U.S. Sen. Warren tells union crowd: ‘The game is rigged’ against workers “These families are working harder than ever, but they can’t get ahead. Many feel that the game is rigged against them, and they are right. The game is rigged against them.” WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told a large union audience that despite work- ing harder than ever, U.S. workers aren’t seeing the fruits of their labor. “I see evidence everywhere of the pounding working people are taking,” said Warren, the keynote speaker at the national AFL-CIO’s Raising Wages Summit Jan. 7 in Washington, D.C. “These families are working harder than ever, but they can’t get ahead. Many feel that the game is rigged against them, and they are right. The game is rigged against them.” Warren blamed supply side — or trickle down — economics for the downslide of the American middle class. “When all the varnish is removed, trickle-down just means helping the biggest corporations and the richest people in this country, and claiming that those big corporations and rich people could be counted to create an economy that would work for every- one else,” Warren said. That didn’t happen. Warren said that over the last 32 years, literally 100 percent of the growth in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has gone to the top 10 percent. “All of it,” she said. Prior to that — from 1935 to 1980 — 90 percent of all workers — middle class, working class, the poor — shared 70 percent of all the new income growth, while the other 30 percent went to the wealthiest 10 percent. “Overall, as the economic pie got bigger, pretty much everyone was get- ting a little more,” Warren said. “As our economy got richer, our families got richer; and as our families got richer, our country got richer. That is how we built a great middle class in America.” But by the early 1980s, wages had flattened out, while expenses kept go- ing up. The squeeze was terrible, she said. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much, adjusted for inflation, on mortgages than they had a generation earlier. They were spending more on health insurance, more to send their kids to college, and both parents had to work, creating new expenses. (Turn to Page 7)