• Advertisement

Workers Fail To See Gains As Healthcare Sector Grows

Washington, DC ― The healthcare sector is one of the most important sources of jobs in the economy. Healthcare spending reached $3.2 trillion in 2015, or 17.8 percent of GDP, and accounted for 12.8 percent of private sector jobs. It was also the only industry that consistently added jobs during the Great Recession, and grew 20 percent between 2005 and 2015. Despite this growth, wages have either declined or been stagnant over the past decade for healthcare workers in hospitals and outpatient centers.

new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation with additional funding provided by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, describes the changing patterns of jobs and wages for healthcare workers, specifically in hospitals and outpatient clinics over the decade from 2005 to 2015. The healthcare sector has become more demographically diverse over the decade, but as jobs shift from hospitals to outpatient centers, wages are declining or stagnating, and inequality is increasing. (See healthcareworkers.us for more info and related blog posts.)

The report, “Organizational Restructuring in U.S. Healthcare Systems: Implications for Jobs, Wages, and Inequality,” provides a detailed breakdown of which groups of workers are experiencing stagnant or declining wages. For instance, the report finds that employment in outpatient centers has grown six times the rate of hospitals, but the only demographic group in these facilities to see wage gains is white men ― and these are modest. Some other highlights include:

  • Job growth in outpatient facilities was disproportionately high for black workers (65 percent growth rate), Hispanic workers (103 percent), and Asian/others (82 percent), and within these groups, women’s job growth outpaced that of men.
  • Overall median real hourly wages rose very modestly in hospitals, increasing by 75 cents over the decade from $23.79 to $24.54. This was an increase of 3.2 percent over the decade, or less than a third of a percent a year on average.
  • The findings in this report show that the unraveling of hospital-based employment systems is associated with greater wage inequality. Wages have declined over the decade in outpatient care facilities, with notable declines in the pay of black men employed as medical technicians or as health aides and assistants.  In hospitals, the rise in real wages among healthcare professionals and the modest fall in wages for non-professional groups suggest that inequality has increased within hospital settings.

Eileen Appelbaum, co-author of the report and Senior Economist at CEPR, stated: “Declining real wages in outpatient services cannot be explained by factors that often influence wage determination: educational level, age, or the share of workers who are part-time or foreign-born. Educational attainment rose for virtually every occupational group ― in some cases, substantially ― and is higher in outpatient care centers than in hospitals.”

Rosemary Batt, co-author and Cornell University professor, points to institutional explanations such as changes in union density. “While union density increased among professional employees between 2005 and 2015, union density has fallen among non-professional employees, particularly in outpatient settings. This may have contributed to the decline in median real wages for these workers.”

For more on the report’s findings, including blog posts and related materials, see healthcareworkers.us.

If You’re Surprised By America’s Wage Stagnation, Then You’re Not Paying Attention

By Larry Willis, President of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the economy and how well it’s doing. The unemployment rate has steadily fallen for years now, and jobs are being created.

But wages? Not so much.

The latest jobs report shows that while the unemployment rate remains low, wages aren’t keeping up with inflation. Instead, they are falling flat.

Some economists and policymakers seem baffled — but TTD and our affiliated unions aren’t.

Yes, there are a number of reasons for this trend. But, as we reflect ahead of Labor Day, it is clear that anti-union policies, like so-called “right to work” laws, and failure to invest in our crumbling infrastructure are contributing factors that need to be called out and addressed.

Unions act as a check against corporate power, making union representation one of the most reliable ways for working people to improve their quality of life and secure a living wage. In fact, data shows a direct correlation between high union density and higher wages and better benefits. And while union members are more likely to have a pension, employer-paid health insurance, and earn an average of 13.2 percent more than their non-union counterparts, the union difference doesn’t just affect those covered by collective bargaining agreements. Strong union contracts influence competition, driving up wages, benefits, and standards of living for non-union workers too.

So what happens when working people don’t have access to unions? Take a look around – we’re seeing it right now. While millions of Americans struggle just to get by, the average CEO makes nearly $14 million annually – 200 times what an average employee earns. This is not a coincidence. It is the result of ruthless, decades-long attacks on the rights of working people to demand better for themselves and their families.

As for all those jobs being created, it is time we ask ourselves what kind of jobs they are. Based on an analysis from MIT’s living wage calculator, it takes a typical family of four (two adults, two children) more than $58,000 annually to have their basic needs met. A minimum-wage, non-union job just won’t cut it.

This country needs more good jobs — the kind that allow people to own a car, buy a house, and put their kids through college. Attacks on the rights of working people to negotiate together for better wages and benefits are not the only reasons these jobs are lacking. Failure by political leaders to invest in our nation’s transportation system hasn’t just left us with infrastructure that’s crumbling and dangerous — this inaction has also resulted in missed opportunities to create as many as 900,000 long-term, good paying jobs, annually.

Thanks to high union density in transportation and infrastructure industries, people working in these sectors — including frontline workers who build, operate, and maintain our transportation system — earn higher pay, better benefits, and more job security than their low-wage counterparts. In fact, at $38,480, the median annual wage paid by occupations in infrastructure is nearly $4,000 higher than the national median wage.

When Congress considers transportation and infrastructure spending, TTD and our affiliated unions will fight for policies that ensure these investments will continue to create the type of jobs we know our country needs. We cannot support an infrastructure plan that threatens long-standing labor standards or undermines the collective bargaining rights of working people.

There are ways to turn things around and make our economy work for everyone. But doing so requires taking a stand against the rich and powerful — something working people cannot do alone. America needs a commitment from political leaders on both sides of the aisle, not only to invest boldly in infrastructure, but to end attacks on the rights of working families, and understand that strong unions aren’t part of the problem — they are part of the solution.

Presidential Race: Different Tax Policies Would Have HUGE Effects On Working People

Underneath all the headlines about emails and wandering hands, there are some very important policy differences between the two presidential candidates.  Let’s start with tax policies.

Donald trump 5 (Gage skidmore Flikr)Donald Trump:

  • His plan would give highest-income taxpayers – those with incomes of more than $3.7 million – an average tax cut of $1.1 million.
  • About 8 million large families and single parents would see their taxes increase under his proposals.
  • His tax plan would add about $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
  • His plan would cut taxes for hedge fund operators and other money managers by more than a third — allowing them to use a special 15% “pass-through” tax rate.

hillary clinton (WisPolitics.com FLIKR)Hillary Clinton:

  • Her plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income households by an average of $100.
  • High-income taxpayers would see an average tax hike of $118,000.
  • Her tax plan would increase federal revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade (which could be used to lower the federal debt, or to offset spending).

Donald Trump is old enough to remember what happens when the rich get tax cuts:

  • Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut: “Despite the tax cuts, business investment remained weak… The ballooning budget deficit forced Mr. Reagan to give ground” and taxes were raised again in 1986. And the deficit kept growing, until George H.W. Bush broke his “no new taxes” pledge in 1990.
  • George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut package was supposed to create enough new jobs to pay back the entire federal debt.  Instead, those tax cuts contributed to record-setting federal deficits.
  • Bush’s 2003 tax cut package didn’t fix the economy, either; and as the deficit kept rising, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested reducing Social Security to pay for the cuts.
  • By 2006, even the US Treasury was saying that tax cuts for the rich don’t do much of anything… other than cut taxes for the rich.

But here we are, just three weeks from the election, and the mainstream media is focused on leaked emails and wandering hands… and there’s almost no mention of the fact that Trump wants to give the highest-income taxpayers an average $1.1 million tax break

There’s almost no mention of the fact that his proposal would add $7.2 trillion to the national debt.

There’s almost no mention of the fact that these sorts of tax cuts never, ever generate the kind of job growth that they’re supposed to.  (Why?  Maybe because corporate decision-makers keep spending their extra money on Wall Street rather than hiring workers.  Just last year alone, corporations spent more than $5.5 trillion buying shares of stock in their own or other companies.  That same amount of money could have created more than 70 million median-wage jobs.)

Three weeks out from the election, and almost no-one in the mainstream media is looking at how Trump’s “greatest tax cut ever!” would actually affect our country.  So if you think your friends might be interested in this, please use social media to share it.

The Tax Policy Center analysis of the presidential candidates’ tax policies is available here.

Benefits of Union Membership Narrow Racial Wage Inequality for Black Workers

black-workers-unions-2016-08-fig12Washington D.C. – Black workers are more likely than workers of any other race to be represented by a union, finds a recent report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). The report, “Black Workers, Unions, and Inequality”, finds that Black union workers experience higher wages and better access to health insurance and retirement benefits than their non-union peers.

The report investigates the demographic characteristics and wage trends of Black workers, union and non-union, from 1983 to 2015. Compared to their predecessors of the early 1980s, Black union workers of today are more likely to be female, older, have more formal education, be immigrants, and work in the public sector.

Black union workers on average earn 16.4 percent higher wages than similar non-union Black workers. Black union workers are also 17.4 percentage points more likely to have employer-provided health insurance and 18.3 percentage points more likely to have an employer-sponsored retirement plan.

Other highlights in the report include:

  • Black union workers in low-wage occupations have wages that are 18.9 percent higher than their non-union counterparts.
  • Black immigrants are more likely than native Blacks to be unionized. In 2015, Black immigrant workers had a unionization rate of 16.9 percent compared to 13.8 percent for native Blacks.
  • Unionization rates for Black workers have declined across all sectors, but the decline has been especially steep for manufacturing (from 42.3 percent in 1983 to 13.3 percent in 2015).
  • Black union workers on average earn $24.24 per hour, compared to $17.78 for non-union Black workers.
  • 71.4 percent of Black union workers have employer-provided health insurance, compared to 47.7 percent of non-union Black workers.
  • 61.6 percent of Black union members have employer-sponsored retirement plans, compared to 38.2 percent of non-union Black workers.

Despite the clear benefits of being a member of a union, decades of anti-union policy decisions have resulted in a tenuous environment for collective bargaining. Over the past three decades, the Black unionization rate has dropped 56 percent while the overall unionization rate has fallen 48 percent. The deunionization that has occurred over the past thirty years has occurred alongside and contributed to a rise in U.S. wage inequality.

Cherrie Bucknor, author of the report added that “unionization for Black workers is critical to narrowing the wage gap between Black and white workers. When talking about growing wage inequality, you can’t exclude unions and the role they play in that discussion.”

You can find the full report here.

Here is a short video of Alan Barber and Cherrie Bucknor posted just before Labor Day, discussing their new report: Black Workers, Unions, and Inequality.

 

As Union Density Declines Nonunion Workers Suffer Low Wages

Decline in union density costs nonunion workers
$133 billion annually in lost wages

In the new report, Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing, Washington University sociologist Jake Rosenfeld and co-authors find that the dramatic decline in union density since 1979 has resulted in far lower wages for nonunion workers, an impact larger than the 5 percent effect of globalization on their wages found in recent research. Specifically, nonunion men lacking a college degree would have earned 8 percent, or $3,016 annually, more in 2013 if unions had remained as strong as they were in 1979.

Between 1979 and 2013, the share of private sector workers in a union has fallen from about 34 percent to 11 percent among men, and from 16 percent to 6 percent among women. The authors note that unions keep wages high for nonunion workers for several reasons: union agreements set wage standards and a strong union presence prompts managers to keep wages high in order to prevent workers from organizing or their employees from leaving. Moreover, unions set industry-wide norms, influencing what is seen as a “moral economy,”

“Working class men have felt the decline in unionization the hardest,” said Rosenfeld. “Their paychecks are noticeably smaller than if unions had remained as strong as they were almost 40 years ago. Rebuilding collective bargaining is one of the tools we have to reinvigorate wage growth, for low and middle-wage workers.”

Rosenfeld, along with co-authors Jennifer Laird and Patrick Denice, find that the effects of union decline on the wages of nonunion women are not as substantial because women were not as heavily represented in unionized private sector jobs. The authors note, however, that any substantial growth in collective bargaining would be expected to have as much or more impact on women as men. Specifically, the authors find that women’s wages would be 2 to 3 percent higher if unions had stayed at their 1979 levels. Their study also reveals that private sector nonunion men of all education levels would earn 5 percent ($52) higher weekly wages in 2013 if private-sector union density (the share of workers in similar industries and regions who are union members) remained at its 1979 level, an increase of $2,704 in annual paychecks for full-time employees.

This is the first study providing a broad estimate of the wage decline for nonunion workers as the result of the erosion of unions.

This decline in unions has eroded wages for nonunion workers at every level of education and experience, costing billions in lost wages. For the 32.9 million full-time nonunion private sector women and 40.2 million full-time private sector men, there is a $133 billion loss in annual wages because of weakened unions.

Given dramatically weakened unions, their effect on nonunion wages has declined over time: these effects have fallen to between one-half and two-thirds of their late-1970s levels.

Union decline has exacerbated wage inequality in the United States by dampening the pay of nonunion workers as well as by eroding the share of workers directly benefiting from unionization: union erosion can explain a third of the growth of wage inequality among men and one-fifth of the rise of wage inequality among women. At least for middle-wage men, the impact of the erosion of unions on the wages of both union and nonunion workers is likely the largest single factor underlying wage stagnation and wage inequality.

“Unions have functioned to raise the wages of all workers, union and nonunion,” said Lawrence Mishel, EPI President. “The erosion of collective bargaining has clearly taken a huge toll on nonunion wages in the United States, and is a major factor in the wage stagnation of the last four decades.”

The DOL To Double Overtime Rule Lifting The Wages Of An Estimated 12 Million Workers

Thomas Perez delivers remarks after President Barack Obama announced Perez as his nominee for Labor Secretary, in the East Room of the White House, March 18, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Thomas Perez delivers remarks after President Barack Obama announced Perez as his nominee for Labor Secretary, in the East Room of the White House, March 18, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

12.5 Million Americans: the number of people that the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates will be affected by President Obama’s changes to the overtime rule.

Today, the Department of Labor, under President Obama’s direction, will update the threshold for salaried workers who automatically qualify for overtime when they work more than 40 hours a week.

“We’re making more workers eligible for the overtime that you’ve earned. And it’s one of the single most important steps we can take to help grow middle-class wages,” said President Obama.

“New overtime protections mark a major victory for working people that will improve the lives of millions of families across America,” said Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO. “We applaud the Obama Administration heeding the call for action to ensure working people get paid for all the hours we work. Taking this step to restore overtime is one of the many ways we are beginning to change the rules of our economy that are rigged in favor of Wall Street.”

“The fight for even stronger overtime protections and to raise wages for all working people continues. But today, millions of workers will receive a long overdue raise, healthier and more productive jobs, and more time to spend with our community and loved ones,” added Trumka. 

This simple rule change will have a significant impact on our local and national economy. The White House estimates this rule change will put $12 billion dollars into the hands of hard working Americans over the next ten years.

The DOL is lifting the threshold for salaried workers from just over $23,660 a year to $47,476. This means that if you are a salaried employee who makes less than $47,476 dollars you will now be entitle to overtime (time and 1/2) for every hour worked in a week above 40.

This doubles the current salary threshold while being responsive to public comments regarding regional variations in income by setting the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the lowest income Census region (currently the South). Tying the salary threshold to the lowest-wage region of the country has strong historical precedent in previous rulemakings.

This salary threshold will be reevaluated and updated every three years ensuring that if continues to meet the 40th percentile mark.

Employers have used this low salary threshold to cheat workers out of higher wages for decades. Many of these workers routinely work 50-60 hours a week and are paid a flat rate. In some cases salaried workers were putting in so many extra hours, without any additional pay, that their per-hour rate would drop below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Now employers will have to choose between raising the wages of salaried employees or keeping employees at their current salary but reducing the number of hours they work in a week. Reducing the number of hours worked would lead to job growth as employers will need to hire additional workers to fulfill their needs.

Check out this short video from the White House that explain the rule change and how it will effect individual salaried workers. 

EPI estimates that raising the overtime salary threshold will directly benefit a broad range of working people, including:

  • 6.4 million women, or 50.9 percent of all directly benefiting workers
  • 4.2 million parents and 7.3 million children (under age 18)
  • 1.5 million blacks, and 2.0 million Hispanics
  • 4.5 million millennials, defined as workers age 16 to 34 (who make up 28.2 percent of the salaried workforce but 36.3 percent of directly benefiting workers)
  • 3.6 million workers age 25 to 34 (who make up 22.9 percent of the salaried workforce but 28.7 percent of directly benefiting workers)
  • 3.2 million workers with a high school degree but not more education (who make up 15.5 percent of the salaried workforce but 25.3 percent of directly benefiting workers)

This is a monstrous step in the right direction to lift the wages of millions of Americans. The White House estimates that the new rule is expected to extend overtime protections to 4.2 million more Americans who are not currently eligible under federal law.

The new rule is slated to take effect on December 1st of this year.


Below are a couple of charts from the EPI that break down what industries will see the biggest boost from this new rule change and the number of workers impacted by the new rule, state by state.

In New Hampshire, over 54,000 workers will be directly effected by this new rule change.  Texas, Florida and California will see the biggest increases with over 1 million workers benefiting from this change.

New Report Shows New Hampshire Workers Are Continuing To Lose Ground

New Report Examines New Hampshire Economy, Finds Wages for Many Workers Losing Ground    

CONCORD, NH – The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute (NHFPI) today released a new report, The State of Working New Hampshire, which finds that while the Granite State economy appears to be flourishing by some measures, the benefits are not being felt by everyone. 

“A well-functioning economy should ensure that the workers contributing to it share in the gains they have helped to produce,” said NHFPI Executive Director Jeff McLynch. “Yet wages for the typical New Hampshire worker have not regained ground lost during the recession. Those workers – and the financial anxiety they face – should be the focus of policymakers’ efforts to shape the New Hampshire economy in the years ahead.”

The State of Working New Hampshire examines short- and long-term trends in employment, workforce demographics, wages, and incomes. Key findings include:

New Hampshire’s workforce is aging in character and stagnating in size. More than 25 percent of the state’s workforce is over age 55; in 2015, only Maine and Vermont had larger shares of the workforce in this age category. As increasing numbers of workers retire, there may not be enough younger workers to replace them, which raises concerns for the future of the workforce.

While employment is expanding in terms of the number of jobs, the quality of these new jobs has declined. An analysis of New Hampshire’s major employment sectors from 1990 to 2015 finds a steady shift away from higher wage manufacturing jobs toward lower wage service sector positions. Employment gains are found largely in the health care, social assistance, administrative support services, and hospitality industries, which traditionally offer lower wages on average.

Economic output for New Hampshire is expanding, but income for the typical household has declined. The state’s median hourly wage fell nearly 7 percent between 2007 and 2015. While New Hampshire has one of the highest median wages in the country, it experienced one of the steepest declines among all states since the onset of the recession.

Since 1990, New Hampshire has experienced uneven wage growth, which has grown increasingly more pronounced over time, particularly for workers on the lower end of the wage distribution. After adjusting for inflation, a worker in the top fifth of the distribution saw wages grow by 11 percent, while the hourly wage for a worker in the bottom fifth is now 7.4 percent lower overall.

As NHFPI explained in its earlier report, Taking the Measure of Need in the Granite State, the official poverty threshold understates the degree of economic insecurity in New Hampshire and elsewhere, as a family of three is considered “not poor” if it earns a collective income of $20,000. Of the roughly 77,900 working age adults living in poverty in New Hampshire, around 54 percent were employed full-time or part-time in 2014, and one-third of these adults – around 28,900 individuals – had attended college at some point in their lives. 

“As we consider public policies that will bolster employment and enable individuals to engage in the workforce more readily, we should be mindful of the fact that some jobs simply may not pay enough for workers and their families to achieve economic security,” said McLynch.

 

Learn more in NHFPI’s report, The State of Working New Hampshire, available online here 

The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to exploring, developing, and promoting public policies that foster economic opportunity and prosperity for all New Hampshire residents, with an emphasis on low- and moderate-income families and individuals. Learn more at www.nhfpi.org.

A Significant Percentage Of NH Jobs Do Not Pay Enough To Meet A “Basic Family Budget” Threshold

New Report Examines Cost of Making Ends Meet in the  Granite State, Finds Many Jobs Lack Pay Sufficient to Achieve Economic Stability

NHFPI logo -Color-with-TagCONCORD, NH – New Hampshire’s official poverty rate of 9.2 percent was the lowest in the nation in 2014, but a new analysis underscores the failure of official poverty measures to present an accurate picture of the numbers of people struggling to make ends meet. The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute (NHFPI) today released a new research paper, Taking the Measure of Need in the Granite State, which examines the shortcomings of the traditional poverty measures and offers a more comprehensive method of assessing what it takes to get by in the Granite State.

“The official poverty rate stands at odds with the economic anxiety many Granite State families continue to experience,” said NHFPI Executive Director Jeff McLynch. “Traditional measures fail to account for New Hampshire’s high cost of living, which leaves even greater numbers of working families struggling to pay for necessities and puts financial stability far out of reach.” 

In Taking the Measure of Need, NHFPI examines the level of income necessary to secure basic necessities using the Basic Family Budget concept developed by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, DC-based think tank. The Basic Family Budget approach accounts for regional price differences and attempts to assess the true cost of achieving a modest standard of living. This method reflects costs for housing, food, transportation, healthcare, child care (if applicable), taxes, and other necessities, such as clothing, in a particular area for various family types. 

The cost of living in Manchester illustrates the stark difference between the federal poverty measure and actual cost for basic needs. The official federal poverty threshold for a two adult, one child family is $19,055. Under the Basic Family Budget approach, the same family living in Manchester would need an income of $62,684 to afford a modest standard of living, a number that is more than three times the official poverty threshold. In fact, EPI’s Basic Family Budget assessment finds Manchester ranks among the most expensive places to live in the country. 

NHFPI’s research also finds that a sizeable percentage of jobs fail to pay enough for many families to achieve a modest standard of living in the Granite State.

“New Hampshire’s low unemployment rate obscures the fact that many of the jobs that are available do not pay the level of wages required for families to make ends meet,” said Jeff McLynch. “This mismatch leaves many working families with difficult choices, deciding whether to put food on the table or pay the rent, one car repair away from financial disaster. They work tirelessly each day, but remain unable to meet their most immediate needs, much less achieve their longer-term financial goals – saving for retirement, sending their kids to college, or purchasing their own home.” 

Preliminary NHFPI estimates suggest that a substantial share of jobs in the state do not pay enough for families to afford to make ends meet. Based on New Hampshire Office of Employment Security wage data, roughly 64 percent of occupations in New Hampshire likely pay enough for a single person to afford their Basic Family Budget, while only about 56 percent pay enough for a two-worker family of four to do so. More importantly, only 30 percent of occupations pay enough for a single parent with one child to afford a modest standard of living.

Learn more in NHFPI’s paper, Taking the Measure of Need in the Granite State, available online at:  http://www.nhfpi.org/research/state-economy/taking-the-measure-of-need-granite-state.html 


The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to exploring, developing, and promoting public policies that foster economic opportunity and prosperity for all New Hampshire residents, with an emphasis on low- and moderate-income families and individuals. Learn more at  www.nhfpi.org. 

New Poll Shows 66% Of Republicans Oppose The TPP, Spelling Possible Trouble For Ayotte

Former NH State Senator Jim Rubens Challenges
Sen. Ayotte to a debate on American worker wages

A poll released today by the conservative group Americans for Limited Government and independent pollster Pat Caddell shocked the establishment about voters’ attitudes on the 2,000 page Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership agreement.  The shocker: 66% of Republicans oppose the TPP.  Some highlights from the results: 

– 69% of Republicans say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for U.S. Congress who promises to put a stop to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

– 63% of Republicans oppose an effort to pass TPP in a special session of Congress.

– 85% GOP voters agree that “political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right for the American people.”

– 76% of Republicans say “the same political elite who have been rigging the political process in Washington are the same ones that have been rigging trade deals that hurt Americans, but benefit themselves.” 

-77% of Americans oppose a Republican leadership effort to vote on TPP in a lame-duck session.

– An astoundingly low 4 percent of GOP voters think that free trade deals have been “more of a benefit to the U.S.”.  

Jim Rubens issued the following statement in response to the poll results: 

“Since the first drafts were leaked in 2014, I have publicly opposed the TPP.  I am firmly on the side of American workers.  It’s time for the U.S. Senate to take the side of American workers and against the crony capitalists and their bought-and-paid-for politicians who want to export American jobs and drive down American wages.

“Conservative Republicans are way out front in opposition to the TPP.  It’s unfortunate that Sen. Kelly Ayotte not only supports this crony capitalist agreement, but she voted last May to give President Obama fast-track trade authority to grease it through Congress.  New Hampshire is among the top 10 states most hurt by our trade deficit with China, having lost over 22,000 jobs over the decade ending 2011.  It’s clear that voters think that Washington career politicians are selling them out.

“Many people have referred to the TPP as ‘NAFTA on steroids’ because this deal benefits other countries at the expense of American workers who are being replaced by cheap foreign labor.  85% of GOP voters have lost faith in the Washington political class because of their blatant crony capitalism.  I’m running for senate to give voters a way to stop this wholesale sell out of the American worker.”

In the press conference discussing the poll results, pollster Pat Caddell predicts there will be significant primary losses based on this issue.  

Rubens challenges Sen. Ayotte to a debate on TPP and how to get American wages rising again.

On International Women’s Day, AFL-CIO Talks Of How TPP Will Negatively Impact Women

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler Highlights TPP’s Negative Impact on Women 

AFL-CIO Releases Fact Sheet on International Women’s Day 

Women and TPP(Washington, DC, March 8, 2016) – On a press call in honor of International Women’s Day, Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer and Thea Lee, AFL-CIO Deputy Chief of Staff, discussed the negative impact the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will have on women across the world.

“This International Women’s Day, the labor movement recognizes that while women in the workplace have gained a great deal, the harsh reality is too many of us continue to struggle when we shouldn’t have to,” said Shuler. “The bad policies of the TPP are another corporate attack on women and we will continue to fight for policies that lift all women up and recognize the immense contributions we make to the economy.”

“There is no question that flawed trade agreements and policies have cost America’s working women good jobs and have contributed to stagnant wages and growing inequality,” said Lee. “We need to address unfair trade practices like currency manipulation, illegal subsidies and workers’ rights violations and must defeat TPP so we do not accelerate the race to the bottom that benefits global corporations.”

Read the fact sheet: Bad Trade Deals and Their Impact on Women Globally
Lower Wages, Reduced Access to Lifesaving Healthcare and Human Trafficking

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,447 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement