Letter to Dr. Nathaniel Cobb, Indian Health Services

Dr. Nathaniel Cobb, MD
Division of Epidemiology
Indian Health Service
5300 Homestead Rd NE
Albuquerque NM 87110
Phone: (505)248-4132
E-mail: nathaniel.cobb@ihs.gov





Dr. Nathaniel Cobb,

Thank you for the quick response.

As I am sure you must have been thinking as you wrote this response to me, I would not find it satisfactory.

I have contacted all the heads of Indian Health at each of the tribes that operate casinos over the last three years on this issue--- NOT ONE SINGLE ONE has responded by e-mail or been willing to talk to me on the phone.

Quite frankly, I seriously doubt there are circumstances where the impact of second-hand smoke can be dealt with in one fell swoop.

Yet, we both know this is more about casino PROFITS and the way casino PROFITS influence POLITICS.

What are you suggesting, is that it will take some kind of revolution in this country before an agency like yours which has a mandate to educate on this serious issue will act?

I find this coming from a medical doctor such as you very strange; that on this one single issue involving human health where so many lives can be saved and health maintained you suggest that it is up to a union to take the action rather than you.

What you are suggesting is that tribal leaderships motivated solely by profits are to be given into on a health care issue so adversely affecting human health as the issue of workers being forced to work in an environment composed of second-hand smoke because you do not want to rock the boat--- using as your excuse: "sovereignty."

There seems to be a clear admission here on your part that these tribal governments involved in gaming have been so corrupted by money they don't even care about the health of their own people let alone anyone else.

As you are fully aware, most of these casinos are run by outside management firms only using sovereignty to escape protecting the rights of casino workers to be free from second-hand smoke in their employment.

You come up with this flimsy excuse that the issue of smoke-free casinos cannot be addressed because the details of the conference--- the Indian Health Summit--- are already set and established.

However, what is preventing those who will be doing the presentations on the serious consequences of tobacco from raising the issue concerning the need for these casinos to go smoke-free because it is a matter of fundamental human rights for workers not to be forced to work in these conditions that we all know are seriously detrimental to human health?

You, as a medical doctor, are requesting that I should send you further information regarding the consequences of working in these smoke-filled casinos?

It is almost unbelievable that you, being a medical doctor, have even written these words.

That you acknowledge you have known about this problem and not insisted the politicians correct this, is a disgrace. You are the expert witness here.

I find it very difficult to understand how the scientific and medical community has managed to turn out the most respected from these professions to testify:

- Against the tobacco companies in law suits;

- At Congressional and State Legislative hearings for "freedom to breath" legislation;

- In support of smoke-free workplaces for everyone else except casino workers.

But, for some reason there is complete, total, overwhelming and absolute silence when it comes to the issue coercing these casinos in the Indian Gaming Industry to go smoke-free to protect the health of two-million casino workers.

At this point, since you agree this is a very serious problem; I would request that you convey my concerns--- AND WHAT YOU CLAIM ARE YOUR SHARED CONCERNS--- to each and everyone of those people who will be participating in the tobacco workshops, forums or making any presentations on tobacco and request that they specifically address the problem of second-hand smoke in casinos and make suggestions and recommendations how this issue will be resolved by coercing these casino managements to go smoke-free.

The Manitoba, Canada government has taken the stand that they will not approve any further casino Compacts or upgrades or new licenses for any casino unless it will be smoke-free.

Something is very wrong with the scenario you bring forward here. I find it kind of strange that a public official such as yourself, who has a legislated mandate to provide the leadership in protecting human health, would tell a citizen writing to you to go and do your job for you.

I expect you to communicate your concerns regarding second-hand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke) to each member of the United States Congress, every single state legislator in each and every state; and, I expect that you will convey your concerns as a medical doctor and in your capacity as a public official with the specific mandate to raise this concern with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Department of Interior; and further, that you instruct all of those employed at the local and state levels working for Indian Health Services to immediately undertake discussions about this with their tribal governments.

Sovereignty has nothing to do with this issue.

Your department and agency is involved in this conference. As a result, you have a mandate to bring this issue forward.

I assume you do not request permission from tribal governments to raise any other issues related to human health; so why would you have conceded your mandate on this vital issue to tribal governments with no demonstrated concern on this issue?

To suggest that this issue can wait until another conference, where both you and I know that I will never receive permission to speak on this issue, is about as insensitive and uncaring a response that anyone could ever expect to receive from a public official who has the scientific and medical background to know and understand that thousands of casino workers will lose their health while others will die from second-hand smoke they are forced to breath as terms and conditions of employment.

I am requesting that you carry out the mandate you have from Congress and act to make sure this issue is addressed at your upcoming conference with the aim of resolving this issue once and for all.

I expect to receive written confirmation that you have taken such action.

I assume that President Barack Obama would not appreciate you dragging your feet on this issue since he is so concerned about health care costs; I don't think I have to lecture you, a medical doctor, about the costs involved in trying to cure cancers, heart and lung problems associated with second-hand smoke in the workplace.

With all the attention now focused on accusations of frivolous government spending, I would think you would be more sensitive to the need to bring this issue forward at your upcoming conference.

Respectfully,

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Cc: Maggie Bird
President,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council


-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Cobb [mailto:nathaniel.cobb@ihs.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:18 PM
To: amaki000@centurytel.net
Cc: Jones, Candace (IHS/NPA); Karol, Susan (IHS/HQE); Wohr, Megan S (IHS/PHX)

Subject: Casino workers and smoking

Dear Mr. Maki:

Your email (below) was forwarded to me for response, as the Agency lead for tobacco control. Thank you for your suggestions - I completely agree that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in Casinos is a serious health issue for both the employees and the patrons. Labor law is outside my expertise and purview, but I will try to address a few of the many questions you raise:

1. Can we have a session on casino workers and ETS exposure at the Indian Health Summit?
- reasonable suggestion, but the practical answer is that we did invite the public to submit abstracts, that deadline has passed, and we have already finalized the agenda and cannot add another session. We do have a tobacco session scheduled, but nothing was submitted that focused specifically on casinos.

2. Have we discussed this issue with ACS, AHA, or ALA?
- yes. In discussions with ACS, we have agreed that local advocacy may be the most effective way to approach this issue.

3. Can IHS work with BIA to ban smoking in Casinos?
- IHS is an agency of Health and Human Services, not Interior. We have no regulatory role with regard to Gaming compacts, so no direct influence. In our advisory role with regard to health issues, we may make recommendations to another agency. Your suggestion has merit, and I will discuss it with senior leadership within IHS. I note that you have cc'd your email to your congressional delegation. The Congress has much more power to dictate terms of Indian Compacts than we do, so you should continue to work closely with them. A formal letter to a Member of Congress or to an Agency Head, with a clearly worded request, will always get a response.

4. What else can we do?
- It is true that ETS exposure is a health issue, but the solutions are political. We have great respect for Tribal Sovereignty, and unless and until Tribal Leaders support a smoking ban in casinos, it is not likely to happen. So my suggestion is that you contact the National Indian Health Board and ask for a time slot to present the issue at their next Consumer Conference. That meeting is a great opportunity to influence the thinking of Indian Country leadership.

Thank you for your concern, and I look forward to attending your session at the NIHB conference! If you have any educational materials or scientific studies of ETS and casino workers, I would appreciate your sending me copies.

--
Nathaniel Cobb MD
Chief, Chronic Disease Branch
Division of Epidemiology
Indian Health Service
5300 Homestead Rd NE
Albuquerque NM 87110
(505)248-4132


From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:47 PM
To: Kimi De Leon; Joan Kim
Cc: 'Jim Hart'; 'John Kolstad'; 'Kip Sullivan'; 'Carl Levin'; 'Sen.Jim Carlson'; rep.bill.hilty@house.mn; rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn; rep.tom.Rukavina@house.mn; rep.tony.sertich@house.mn; ddepass@startribune.com; mmiron@bemidjipioneer.com; bswenson@bemidjipioneer.com; 'Chris Spotted Eagle'; jgoldstein@americanrightsatwork.org; teresa_detrempe@klobuchar.senate.gov;
peter.erlinder@wmitchell.edu; peter.makowski@mail.house.gov; esquincle@verizon.net; 'Walter Tillow'; nursenpo@gmail.com; 'Steve Early'; 'Joshua Frank'; 'Ta, Minh'; 'Rhoda Gilman'; 'David Shove'; 'ken nash'; 'Ken Pentel'; WCS-A@yahoogroups.com; MARKOWIT@history.rutgers.edu; tdennis@gfherald.com; 'Myers, John'; loneagle@paulbunyan.net; 'Thomas Kurhajetz'; mhoney@u.washington.edu; moderator@portside.org; debssoc@sbcglobal.net; 'Tom Meersman'; peterb3121@hotmail.com; laurel1@dailyjournal-ifalls.com; jscannel@aflcio.org; rgettel@uaw.net; gdubovich@usw.org; info@jamesmayer.org; mzweig@notes.cc.sunysb.edu; rachleff@macalester.edu; advocate@stpaulunions.org; elizabeth_reed@levin.senate.gov; 'Alan Uhl'; 'Charles Underwood'
Subject: Re: Question on Indian Health Summit

To whom it may concern;

Could you tell me if there will be a discussion at the Indian Health
Summit--- July 7-9, 2009 in Denver, Colorado--- concerning the issue of casino workers in the Indian Gaming Industry and the impact to their health of second hand smoke in their workplaces?

Could you advise me if there have been any discussions about this with the American Cancer Society and/or the Heart and Lung Foundation?

I am very concerned since I find nothing on this important topic among any of the materials you are distributing for the Indian Health Summit.

With health care costs become an important topic for discussion it would seem that this issue would at least merit some kind of mention at an Indian Health Summit considering the large number of Native Americans employed in the Indian Gaming Industry.

Perhaps you would be interested in having me address one of the plenary sessions since this topic has not been considered previously.

I would point out that I have contacted my of the local offices and administrators of the Indian Health Services concerning this issue and no one will speak to me.

With the Indian Health Services being part of the Department of Interior and associated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, it would only seem logical that no further casino "Compacts" would be approved unless they contain provisions banning and prohibiting smoking.

I would also suggest that the Indian Health Services insist that all existing "Compacts" be re-opened so a ban and prohibition on smoking can be inserted into them.

Compacts" are nothing more than contracts and the Obama Administration has seen fit to insist that previously negotiated contracts with labor unions be re-negotiated so there is definitely a precedent that has been established for doing this and I am sure you will agree with me that there could not be a better argument made for renegotiating these "Compacts" than to protect the health of hundreds of thousands of workers employed in these casinos who, in addition to working in these smoke-filled working environments are not protected under any state or federal labor laws, which makes this problem of being employed in a work environment detrimental to human health even a more serious concern.

Perhaps the Indian Health Services could make a recommendation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Department of Interior that the Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, becomes involved so that the protection of casino workers' rights under all state and federal labor laws protecting all other workers in the United States be included at the time the Compacts are re-opened to protect the health of casino workers.

If you have any doubts second-hand smoke contributes to an unhealthy work environment and that second-hand smoke is recognized as a leading contributor to a variety of cancers and heart and lung diseases please do not hesitate to request additional information. I will be more than happy to attend your Indian Health Care Summit with the necessary resource materials.

With some two-million workers now employed in the Indian Gaming Industry we want to make sure everything possible is being done to protect the health and well-being of these workers.

If I have addressed this letter to the wrong persons, would you please provide me with the name of the proper person/s and department/s this letter should be sent to.

If you think this issue concerning the impact of second-hand smoke on the health of casino workers is not significant enough to be discussed at the Indian Health Summit would you be so kind as to advise me of your decision and how it was reached?

Thanking you in advance for your timely consideration;

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Cc: Maggie Bird
President,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council



Dr. Cobb delivered this report way back in 2002:


Nathaniel Cobb, M.D.

Determinants of Cancer Mortality and Cancer Survival among American Indians and Alaska Natives

Friday, March 15

American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) represent one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States, with heavier burdens of many disease categories (diabetes, injury, alcohol related deaths, tuberculosis, suicide, etc.) and more unfavorable measures of health and economic status (infant mortality rate, life expectancy, poverty rate) than all other ethnic groups in the US. Once considered very rare among AI/AN, cancer is now their second leading cause of death. There is a remarkable variation of cancer rates among tribes, which may be caused by genetic, environmental, or behavioral differences. Although overall rates of cancer among AI/AN are still lower than the US all-races rates, 5-year survival from cancer is much worse than other groups. In this presentation I will describe geographic patterns of cancer mortality among AI/AN and advance hypotheses to explain the variability. I will also present results of research that attempts to explain the disparity in cancer survival rates through analysis of various characteristics of the patient (age, distance from hospital, frequency of visits, other conditions) and the health care system (missed opportunities, referral patterns, screening).

Dr. Cobb received his undergraduate degree from Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School. He trained in Family Practice at the University of New Mexico, and after practicing with Indian Health Service for several years, he completed the two year Epidemic Intelligence Service fellowship at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Dr. Cobb also completed the academic portion of the Cancer Prevention and Control fellowship at the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Cobb is currently Director of the Chronic Disease Epidemiology Section of the Indian Health Service National Epidemiology Program, Chief Medical Officer for IHS National Programs, and Director of the IHS Cancer Prevention and Control Program. In addition to his IHS duties, he teaches at the University of New Mexico MPH program and maintains a part-time clinical practice in Emergency Medicine. He also races bicycles and tries to stay ahead of two teenage sons.

References:


Patterns of Cancer Mortality among Native Americans. Cancer 1998;83:2377-83. MEDLINE




I notice Dr. Nathaniel Cobb made a nice little contribution to Barack Obama's campaign. It seems that among the bureaucrats in the Indian Health Services there is quite the little pool of campaign contributions... I find it interesting that there have been no surveys done by the Indian Health Services asking patients if they are employed in environments of second-hand smoke; but, patients are asked if they smoke:


Person
Candidate
Address


Rick Kruis
Donation of $4,664 to Presidential elections 2008
Democrat
Rick Kruis
Physician
Indian Health Service
Updated
Q2/2008
Barack Obama
$4,664
910 SUSAN AVE
Gallup NM

Nathaniel Cobb
Donation of $1,274 to Presidential elections 2008
Democrat
Nathaniel Cobb
Physician
Indian Health Service
Updated
Q3/2008
Barack Obama
$1,274
PO BOX 2939
Corrales NM

Ronald Belinski
Donation of $1,163 to Presidential elections 2008
Republican
Ronald Belinski
Physician
Indian Health Service
Updated
Q1/2008
Ron Paul
$1,163
13910 E 89TH ST N
Owasso OK

Card Check Is Dead

Interesting. Now that that the Employee Free Choice Act is stymied by the Democrats after taking tens of millions of dollars of workers' money in campaign contributions and John Sweeney remained shamefully silent as the Israeli killing machine slaughtered Palestinians because he thought if he were to criticize the carnage that would destroy any chance of getting Democratic Party support for the Employee Free Choice Act.

The leadership of organized labor from the local levels right on up to the very top offices of the AFL-CIO and Change To Win have obediently and loyally served the Democratic Party, which is nothing but a Wall Street party of war and corruption; but, unlike the corrupt big-business and big-money people who thoroughly dominate the Democratic Party, working people have nothing to show for their years of support.

We have heard about "high-road" capitalists and "low-road" capitalists from outfits like "Progressives for Obama," the Nation Magazine, and even the Lovestone grouping which has, again, come to dominate the leadership of the Communist Party USA with a class collaborationist betrayal of the working class under the guise of being part of the "historic" coalition that elected Barack Obama. From the AFL-CIO's "think-tank," the Campaign for America's Future, we have heard all about how they have spear-headed all these "grassroots" efforts for reforms their heroes in the Democratic Party are going to implement... instead, these dirty birds like Robert Borosage and his sidekick Roger Hickey, acting upon instructions from John Sweeney, have sown divisions in the movement for health care reform dealing single-payer universal health care the exact same fate as Card Check.

As for the contention of the Wall Street Journal that the right is pouting over its defeat, here again, we have the Wall Street Journal peddling this crap in order to deceive and disorient.

The right has nothing to pout about, Wall Street's candidates won the election. Barack Obama is no socialist; Obama is no progressive; President Barack Obama isn't even a liberal... from day one Barack Obama has been Wall Street's president.

Now organized labor's leaders will sit and pout until John Sweeney's retirement takes place.

And we can be sure some other big-mouth looking for a nice big fat paycheck compliments of workers' dues will step forward talking real tough while doing nothing.

John Sweeney and Andy Stern set this defeat up for Card Check when they divided the labor movement--- first by backing down on single-payer universal health care, then in their silence as Israel slaughtered Palestinian children in Gaza.

These labor fakers have no intent of turning organized labor loose in fighting capital; they understand their roles very well. They play a role as important in this capitalist system every bit as important as the Wall Street bankers and the industrialists. The role of these labor leaders is to create a docile working class. No matter how tough the talk we hear from the big blowhards like Leo Gerard of the USW... we can rely on them for one thing in the end when all is said and done: These labor fakers will never show up for a fight.

Most likely working people are going to end up with labor legislation reform in the name of the Employee Free Choice Act which will further restrict the rights of working people to organize into unions and John Sweeney and his slobbering Obama supporters and boosters will try to put on a happy face claiming it was the best compromise they could get.

This is the longest running circus in the world.

The sad fact is, the Wall Street Journal has run an op/ed piece more truthful than any opinion pieces in the People's Weekly World for the last nine years.

And, now, for the next act under the Big Top: Ladies and Gentleman, introducing the newest act to the show, straight from Barack Obama's transition team, please give a warm round of applause to David Bonior who the Wall Street Democrats have selected as their choice to mislead organized labor as he enters the center ring.

We have the "Tea Party" protesters with their three cornered newspaper hats and we have the three-ring circus where the Democrats in one ring, the Republicans in the other ring take turns showcasing their best new acts in the center ring.

The only question remaining is: How much longer are people going to continue purchasing tickets to the show--- perhaps when their credit cards fed into the ATM machine come back with the message: transaction not allowed.

Alan L. Maki

Some Democrats only care about labor's money.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035645604940949.html

It has been three hard months of political exile for those on the right, a time for them to count their grievances and dress their outrage in the trappings of centuries past. Some have donned colonial outfits to stage tea parties. Others have found the 1860s more to their taste, reviving the fiery language of secession fever.

But they can all take heart from one development in the nation's capital. Good old K Street, where the big tea party never stopped, has all but halted organized labor's effort to make it easier for workers to unionize.

After massive lobbying both by labor and by business, it appears that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which, as it now stands, would allow workers to organize in many cases merely by signing cards instead of holding elections, will not have the 60 votes required to get past a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Now, to be pro-labor is to resign yourself to years of failures and defeats, with few tea parties along the way for consolation. Even so, the setback on EFCA has to be a bitter one. Union members worked hard to elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, as they did to put Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in the White House. And now, just as in those previous two periods of Democratic governance, labor's friends are having trouble enacting basic labor-law reforms.

To understand why we need new rules governing unionization, look no further than yesterday's New York Times, where Steven Greenhouse told the story of a Louisville, Ky., hospital whose nurses tried to form a union but failed after they were reportedly threatened with losing their benefits among other things.

Such practices are commonplace and well-documented by Human Rights Watch and others. But labor's case never seemed to hit home. Instead, conservatives have carried the day, playing on lurid stereotypes to hint that intimidation by unions is the real worry and that EFCA spells the end of secret ballots in the workplace and hence of democracy itself.

Before I go on, I should acknowledge that this whole thing might be a clever bit of jiu-jitsu by the unions. After all, the mere threat of EFCA has turned business almost Soviet in its feigned concern for the proletariat. The Chamber of Commerce is now exhorting the public to "stand up for workers' rights," running a "workforce freedom airlift," and, along with other trade associations, supporting groups with names like "Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" and "Workforce Fairness Institute."

EFCA's supporters may simply drop their bill's most controversial provisions, get some compromise measure passed, and spend the next 20 years reminding corporate America of the days when it was touchingly committed to "workers' rights" and a "democratic workplace."

If only. The sole clever reversal we have seen so far has been the familiar one where Democrats torpedo the most trustworthy member of their coalition.

Why does labor always get it in the neck?

First, there are those Democrats who don't care much for labor to begin with. Then there is the wide spectrum of Democratic donors and supporters who simply don't understand the problems of blue-collar life. They might dislike the religious right, but they didn't give money to Democratic political campaigns to increase union membership.

Or maybe it's just the money. Consider the lineup of lobbyists that retail giant Wal-Mart has assembled to make its case against EFCA. According to lobbying disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate we find that Wal-Mart's lobbyists include Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (which employs former presidential candidate John Kerry's liaison to Congress during the 2004 campaign), a former legislative director for Rahm Emanuel, and a former assistant to Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Wal-Mart has also secured, according lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, the services of Tony Podesta, of the Podesta Group, one of the hottest lobby shops in Democratic D.C. Mr. Podesta is joined in pushing Wal-Mart's views on EFCA by a former assistant to Democrat Mark Pryor, the other senator from Arkansas.

The real standout on Wal-Mart's labor-issues roster, though, is D+P Creative Strategies, which wears its liberalism as proudly as last week's tax protestors did their three-cornered hats. According to its Web site, D+P "highlights partnership, shared benefits, and a commitment to advancing social justice goals." The disclosure form for its Wal-Mart EFCA activities lists a former assistant to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The bio of its principal, Ingrid Duran, who is also listed as a Wal-Mart lobbyist, declares that the firm's mission is "to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic efforts in addressing the concerns of Latinos, women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities."

Maybe the day will come when those communities are correctly addressed by corporations and the rest. But when their "concerns" turn in the direction of bargaining with their employers, they're on their own.

Write to thomas@wsj.com


Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

National unions form coordinating committee; AFL-CIO president announces retirement plans

This article comes from Workaday Minnesota which is labor's mouthpiece for the Democratic Party in Minnesota and will report anything of benefit to the Democratic Party no matter how anti-labor it is.

This article is a perfect example of one of the major obstacles to working people organizing their own political party in this country.

Note the one paragraph that demonstrates the slavish worship by the corrupt labor-fakers of the Democratic Party:

Sweeney’s departure also comes at a key time for labor: Workers played a top role in electing pro-worker Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to the White House and increasing pro-worker ranks in the Democratic-run Congress.

If someone could explain how anyone can consider Barack Obama "pro-worker" I would like to hear the specific reasons Obama should be considered "pro-worker."

Unions and workers sure did play a key role in electing Barack Obama. What did they get for the effort? Absolutely nothing.

Should we start looking at what Obama is doing to one of the two most active unions who supported him: the UAW? Or, how are the steelworkers (USW) faring with Obama in the White House? I understand Ron Gettelfinger and Leo Gerard might have their own answers; but, why not ask dues paying auto or steel workers who have been tossed by Barack Obama as if they were roadkill to a pack of wolves about their views of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party... not sure where to start looking for workers to question? Try the mines on Minnesota's Iron Range and the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant.

By the way, what kind of "retirement plan" does John Sweeney have? Maybe he should be given stock in Ford and General Motors :)

Anyways, anyhow; I bet Sweeney isn't going to have to worry about how to make a Social Security check last from month-to-month.

As for David Bonior, the former Congressman who led Democratic Party efforts to create "Compacts" for the mobsters running the Indian Gaming Industry leaving over two-million casino workers to fend for themselves without any rights under state and federal labor laws at poverty wages in smoke-filled casinos is bringing all these labor fakers together--- including the National Education Association whose pension funds now surpass the corrupt Teamsters Union pension funds in financing these mobster run casino operations... give me a break... these phonies aren't going to organize anything.

And they are talking about David Bonior heading up this new labor federation? David Bonior is even afraid of the UAW's lead lobbyist in Lansing, Michigan--- Nadine Nosal who, without questioning, loyally serves "pro-labor" Michigan Democrat Governor Granholm.

What is this? Joke time?

Alan L. Maki



Monday 13th April 2009

National unions form coordinating committee; AFL-CIO president announces retirement plans

http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_4002

By Mark Gruenberg

12 April 2009 WASHINGTON - AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney formally told top leaders of the federation that he will retire at the AFL-CIO Convention in September. At the same time, Sweeney, Change To Win leaders and National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel announced creation of the National Labor Coordinating Committee, a group of presidents of the nation’s 12 largest unions.
In arrangements worked out by American Rights At Work President David Bonior, the committee is the first concrete step towards reunifying the labor movement all under one roof. And that includes the 3.2-million-member NEA, which is both unaligned with either labor federation and the nation’s largest union.

Sweeney’s retirement was expected. The former Service Employees president, who will turn 75 in May 5, has led the now-56-union group since 1995, when his slate ousted incumbent Tom Donohue, who took over from Lane Kirkland months before.

Sweeney’s departure also comes at a key time for labor: Workers played a top role in electing pro-worker Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to the White House and increasing pro-worker ranks in the Democratic-run Congress.

Increased political activism and mobilization, to enhance the chances of pro-worker legislation in Congress and nationwide, was and is a top Sweeney cause. The results were that unionists and their families were more than one-fifth of the electorate in 2008, almost double the share (12.4%) of union members in the workforce.

But even as Sweeney leaves, problems remain:

* Labor is still split. One of the leading events of Sweeney’s 14 years at the federation’s helm was the 2005 withdrawal of seven unions -- the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Teamsters, the Laborers, SEIU, UNITE HERE, the Carpenters and the United Farm Workers -- to form Change To Win. CTW wanted more emphasis on organizing and less on politics, but it has joined the AFL-CIO’s political efforts. The new coordinating committee is the first step to heal the split.

But Change To Win has its own problems: UNITE HERE has divided and a majority of its board voted to talk with Sweeney on re-affiliation with the AFL-CIO. UNITE HERE also charged SEIU was trying to take it over. SEIU has an internal battle with its biggest West Coast local. The Laborers, while not back in the AFL-CIO yet, are half-in, half-out, as members of its Building and Construction Trades Department.

* The Employee Free Choice Act, labor’s #1 legislative priority, which Obama supports and pledged to sign, faces a planned GOP Senate filibuster. It has yet to get the 60 committed senators it needs to break a fatal talkathon. A key senator, past co-sponsor Arlen Specter, R-Pa., defected under pressure from business and his party’s Radical Right, which wants to beat him in a primary next year. Several Democrats, notably Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have drifted away.

The bill would help level the playing field between workers and bosses in organizing and bargaining, by writing into law that workers -- not employers -- get to choose how they want their union recognized: Through an NLRB-run election or through the agency’s verification that the union collected authorization cards from a majority of employees at a worksite.

The bill would also increase penalties for labor law-breakers and mandate binding arbitration for a first contract if the two sides can’t agree within 120 days of starting bargaining. The Executive Committee spent part of its Meany Center session discussing the proposal’s prospects and labor’s nationwide campaign for it.

* Even without the CTW unions, the number of members in AFL-CIO-affiliated unions declined by a net of 43,326 from 2007 to 2008, and by 139,474 from 2003 to 2008, the federation’s own figures show.

That decline in turn has hurt the AFL-CIO’s finances, which depend on remittances -- calculated on a per-member basis -- from its 56 member unions, plus payments from its affinity credit card. The federation asked for voluntary contributions last year to pay for the big political push, but the payments fell short of goals.

* Successorship questions. Until Sweeney ousted Donohue at the 1995 convention in New York City, AFL-CIO presidents were often succeeded by their #2 officers, the secretary-treasurers. Current Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka, a former Mine Workers president, is a leading candidate to succeed Sweeney. But at least one CTW union that might return to the AFL-CIO would not do so if Trumka is in the top job. And other names have been floated for Sweeney’s post.

* Structure. Any new, unified labor federation must figure out its structure -- the consensus-based but sometimes-slow AFL-CIO, the leaner top-down CTW, or a mix of both. And it must figure out what to emphasize and what to leave to member unions.

Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service.

Britney Spears can walk off stage because she doesn't want to inhale smoke... casino workers would be fired for walking off the job

Is Barack Obama the kind of man someone representing a large constituency with a gripe can sit down and talk to, believing legitimate problems can be resolved; because, if so, I would like to talk to the guy to find out if there isn’t something that can be done about re-negotiating these “Compacts” creating the Indian Gaming Industry which has left two-million American workers employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights or protections under state or federal labor laws to endure the most extreme “at-will hiring, at-will firing” situation in the country, and without access to health care to boot.

I like the idea of Barack Obama that contracts are always re-negotiable based upon the circumstances... "Compacts" are contracts.

Certainly if auto contracts can be re-opened for re-negotiation there isn't any legitimate reason not to reopen the "Compacts" creating the Indian Gaming Industry to provide casino workers with the same rights and protections all other working people rely on in the United States.

As we can all see, the mobsters running the Indian Gaming Industry aren't that much different from the C.E.O.'s at A.I.G. or General Motors or Ford... and Bernie Madoff ran with them all to make deposits in the Cayman Islands.

I suppose if no one else wants to talk to Obama about what constitutes a living minimum wage based upon real cost of living factors and peace, I could talk to President Obama about these things, too.

In less than fifteen minutes I could probably convince President Obama why we need a “people’s bailout” which includes a moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions as well as the need to extend unemployment benefits from time of joblessness to reemployment.

I could probably make a pretty darn good argument to President Obama as to why we need 800 public health care centers scattered across the United States instead of financing over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil now dotting the globe.

I wouldn’t mind talking to the guy about the benefits of socialism over capitalism, either; after all, Frank Marshall Davis--- a leading African-American Communist journalist and activist--- was his mentor for years.

Maybe President Obama would be willing to let journalists from the New York Times take in such a democratic endeavor; I know I would be all for it.

I can envision the headlines squeezed onto the obituary page of the New York Times: “Obama denies being a closet communist but meets with pissed off socialist worker.”



Spears temporarily halts concert in Vancouver, citing smoke in the air


VANCOUVER, B.C. — Pop singer Britney Spears may have gotten a little choked at GM Place on Wednesday night.

Spears walked off the stage briefly during her performance at the arena, citing smoke in the air. A spokesperson for Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment said Spears returned to the stage after the smoke cleared. The spokesperson said the smoke was from cigarettes and not marijuana, although smoking cigarettes indoors is illegal.

The pop star is on her current 'Circus' tour that includes stops in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom.

The tour may be expanded later to include Europe and Australia.

The tour is currently scheduled to end in Manchester, England, on June 17.

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.


Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Stupid labor leaders and the corrupt Democratic Party have created a monster...

Now here is some real food for thought...

Surprise, surprise.

Labor leaders who have invested workers' pension funds in some of these huge corporations and who pushed the Democrats to bailout Wall Street bankers and big business now cry that these same recipients of these public bailout funds are taking a lot of that money and "investing" it in the campaign to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act and undermine the rights of working people to organize... and these fools are the ones who are going to use the EFCA to organize workers?

Its time for working people to smarten up and get rid of these labor "leaders;" we need to dump the Democratic Party, too.

Alan L. Maki

Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/bank-of-america-hosted-an_n_161248.
html
January 27, 2009 01:10 PM


Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of
America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and
business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top
legislative priority.


Participants on the October 17 call -- including at least one
representative from another bailout recipient, AIG -- were urged to
persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working
against the Employee Free Trade Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate
Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.


Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along
with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for
Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as
an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.


"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a
civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm
watching this happen and I don't believe it."


Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to
Republican senatorial campaigns were needed, they argued, to prevent
America from turning "into France."


"If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money
on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman
and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out
their goddamn jobs," Marcus declared.


Earlier he argued: "As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company
wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]... I would sue the son of a bitch... I'm so
angry at some of these CEOs, I can't even believe the stupidity that is
involved here."


Audio of the conference call, which was obtained by the Huffington Post, is
excerpted throughout this piece to provide a clearer insight into the
pitched battle surrounding the Employee Free Choice legislation. At one
point, relatively early in the call, Marcus joked that he "took a
tranquilizer this morning to calm myself down."




"This bill may be one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life," he
said, explaining that he could have been on "a 350-foot boat out in the
Mediterranean," but felt it was more important to engage on this fight. "It
is incredible to me that anybody could have the chutzpah to try and pass
this bill in this election year, especially when we have an economy that is
a disaster, a total absolute disaster."


The legislation -- which would allow workers to form a union either by
holding a traditional election or having a majority of employees sign
written forms -- is virtually certain to face a Republican filibuster.
Obama and Senate Democrats have stated their commitment to the bill, though
the timing of the vote remains a topic of heated debate.


Weeks before the November election, Marcus, Berman, and others saw this
ominous political landscape taking shape. Hoping to aid opponents of EFCA
in the Senate, they pleaded with participants on the call, mostly stock
analysts or individuals with investment portfolios, to urge clients to prop
up the campaigns of endangered Republican candidates, including Norm
Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.


"If there are not enough Republicans operating as a firewall, after this
election it is going to be very difficult to hold the line," predicted
Berman. "The only way after these elections if we don't have a filibuster
proof Senate... is to make this issue so hot in some states so that even a
Democrat who is up for election in 2010 has to think twice about whether or
not they are going to let this thing go by."


At one point, another individual on the call suggested that participants
send major contributions to Berman's organization as a way of affecting the
election without violating the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "Some
organizations have written checks for $250,000, $500,000, some $2 million
for this," said the man, likely Steven Hantler, the director of free
enterprise and entrepreneurship at Bernie Marcus' Marcus Foundation.


Citing the massive war chests that unions have brought to the EFCA fight,
Marcus asked participants to make campaign donations rather than lobbying
payments. "Fire all these guys in Washington," he said of the K-Street
operators, "they are worthless anyway."


In an interview with the Huffington Post, Berman said that there "was
nothing on that call that spoke to funneling money to anybody." Indeed, at
a separate point, Marcus discussed the need to contribute to issue advocacy
and education activities. The call, Berman continued, was designed to
explain some of the economic implications of passing EFCA and was "one of a
series with people around the country who are connected to businesses."


"There has been, though it has changed in the last few months, a fairly
significant deficit in terms of understanding what this law is about,"
Berman said. "I know a number of business groups have held calls with
people about the impact of this legislation... The unions who are a
proponent of this have not made it a high profile issue. I think they have
learned from their polling that it doesn't poll well, which is why they
don't' want to make it a public issue."


As for the business community, Berman added, "I do think that most
businesspeople fully appreciate the damage that out-of-control labor
leaders have caused for other businesses. There is no appetite for finding
out if you are going to have to be the next business to deal with other
labor issues."


A Bank of America spokesman declined a request for public comment, and the
bank's representative on the call played a minor role. The conference call
was referenced in a November 5 Bank of America research document, in which
the company noted that EFCA "increases the likelihood that retailers would
be unionized, which could drive higher labor cost at retail." On "the flip
side," however, the document said the bill would increase the "spending
power of lower income consumers as this would be a de facto wage and
benefit increase."


As evidenced by its dual interpretation of the legislation, Bank of
America's role in the EFCA fight is a bit murky. The company, as stated by
an official there, hosted the call for the purposes of equity research,
meaning that their goal was to represent the opinions of clients and not
the bank itself. But their involvement in an effort to drum up support for
defeating the labor-backed legislation, so soon after getting bail out
funds from the federal government, left a bad taste in the mouth of some
union officials.


"Bank of America is now not only getting bailout money. They are lending
their name to participate in a campaign to stop workers from having a
majority sign up [provision]," said Stephen Lerner, Director of the Private
Equity Project at SEIU. "The biggest corporations who have created the
problem are, at the very time, asking us to bail them out and then using
that money to stop workers from improving their lives."

State lawmakers bet gambling can help with budgets

Not once has a single article in the mainstream media nor the alternative media ever addressed the issues surrounding the fact that some two-million casino workers employed in the Indian Gaming Industry work under the most Draconian conditions--- smoke-filled casinos and poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws. This article continues in the same way without respect for working people.

State lawmakers bet gambling can help with budgets

By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer Greg Bluestein, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jan 25, 2:24 pm ET AP

ATLANTA – A tell-tale sign America's chips are down: States are increasingly turning to gambling to plug budget holes.

Proposals to allow or expand slots or casinos are percolating in at least 14 states, tempting legislators and governors at a time when many must decide between cutting services and raising taxes.

Gambling has hard-core detractors in every state, but when the budget-balancing alternatives lawmakers must consider include reducing education funding or lifting sales taxes, resistance is easier to overcome, political analysts said.

"Who wouldn't be interested if you're a politician who needs to fund programs?" said Bo Bernhard, director of research at the International Gaming Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas — a government-funded program.

While gambling has not been immune from the recession, it has held up relatively well compared with states' other revenue streams, such as income and sales taxes. This helps explain why past industry growth spurts have been preceded by economic downturns, experts said.

For example, Rhode Island opened the country's first racetrack casino in 1992, and four states soon followed. More recently, states faced with sagging revenues during the 2001 recession joined multistate lotteries such as Powerball and gave more leeway to Native American tribes seeking to expand their casinos.

Analysts say the latest round of gambling initiatives are noteworthy in volume and ambition — a sign that the industry aims to capitalize on states' badly bruised economies.

"From the gambling industry's point of view, this is their big chance," said Earl Grinols, an economics professor at Baylor University who specializes in gambling.

Ohio's casino advocates, including lobbyists working for Penn National Gambling Inc., are pushing a variety of large-scale development projects. In Georgia, a developer working with Dover Downs Inc., wants to transform a blighted section of downtown Atlanta with a 29-story hotel that would attract tourists with more than 5,500 video lottery terminals.

The developer pitching the $450 million Atlanta project, Dan O'Leary, estimates $300 million a year in revenues would be funneled to the state, helping to pay for a popular lottery-funded scholarship that provides in-state college tuition for students with "B" averages.

Even Hawaii, which along with Utah is one of two states without a lottery or other form of legalized gambling, may consider a change. Aides to Gov. Linda Lingle, long an opponent of gambling, say she is open to discussing it as a way to close the state's growing budget gap.

Gambling proponents are quick to tout its bells and whistles: a $54 billion annual industry that employs more than 350,000 people, with most state gambling revenues coming from lotteries, racetracks and betting devices such as slot and video poker machines. Twelve states reap tax money from full-fledged casinos, and 23 others have casinos on Native American reservations, which generally do not pay taxes to states.

But while advocates argue that casinos will help attract jobs and revitalize downtrodden areas, religious groups and other critics fear gambling has a disproportionately negative impact on lower-income people, and does not provide long-term economic growth.

They point to research that shows casinos attract crime, foster gambling addiction problems and divert money from other businesses.

"We've got gambling in 48 states, and you'd think if it worked, you wouldn't have budget problems or education problems," said Tom Gray, a field director for StopPredatoryGambling.org.

Many of the gambling proposals seek to expand footholds in states that already allow limited gambling.

Kentucky's House speaker had proposed allowing video gambling terminals at the state's racetracks, and legislators in New Hampshire, New York and Texas are seeing proposals this year to allow similar gambling terminals at their tracks. Casino advocates plan to push for casino-style gambling in hurricane-ravaged Galveston, Texas, as well.

Lawmakers in other states are talking about reversing hard-fought crusades to tighten restrictions on gambling.

Nine years after South Carolina lawmakers outlawed video poker, state Sen. Robert Ford is fighting to make it legal again. Since July, lawmakers have cut roughly $1 billion from the state's budget to address revenue shortfalls.

"Gambling ain't no blight on society," Ford said.

In Ohio, where voters repeatedly have rejected ballot proposals to expand gambling, Gov. Ted Strickland said he is willing to listen to proposals to help close a $7 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget.

While analysts have long considered gambling to be almost recession-proof, the economic downturn has seen layoffs, declining revenues and falling stock prices hit casinos. State-run lotteries are faring better, though: More than half of the states with lotteries have reported rising sales over the past six months.

Amid the rush to embrace gambling because of short-term budget problems, some experts say a long-term perspective is needed.

After gambling is approved and revenues are allocated, it's not something lawmakers are likely to reconsider down the road — no matter how much economic conditions may improve.

"Once you have legalized a form of gambling, the moral argument draws away and gambling is looked at as a cost-benefit analysis," said I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law professor at Whittier Law School in Orange County, Calif. "So many states have opened those doors now."

___

Associated Press Writer Seanna Adcox in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.

The New York Times lavishes unjustified praise on Hilda Solis

The New York Times is fully aware of Hilda Solis' miserable voting record in support of the "Compacts" creating the Indian Gaming Industry which now employs well over two-million workers in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state, federal or tribal labor laws.

Any Congressperson who would support sending human beings to work under such Draconian conditions cannot be expected to champion the rights of working people.

It is shameful and disgraceful that the New York Times would publish such an Editorial while never having had the courage to write one single word about the "Compacts" creating the Indian Gaming Industry which is run by a bunch of mobsters.

Not one single slot machine in this country is owned by a Native American band or tribe... this is an industry created using Native American communities as a front for organized crime in the same way the mobsters ran Cuba for so many years until the historic Cuban Revolution put an end to this "relationship" fifty years ago as they chased Batista and Meyer Lansky from the country.

This New York Times "Editorial" is as self-serving and hypocritical as the outfit calling itself "Progressives for Obama" whose leader and founder, Tom Hayden, who travels about the country singing similar praises for his colleague from California, Hilda Solis, while he voted for and supported the very same "Compacts" denying casino workers their basic human rights, dignity and a voice at work.

Of course, it is difficult to blame this country's mouth-piece for big-business in not taking up the issue of casino workers when John Sweeney and organized labor working in cahoots with the corrupt Democratic Party have turned a blind eye towards this injustice in favor of Democrats receiving huge campaign contributions from the Indian Gaming Industry.

The New York Times knows no shame... so, what's new?

Ignoring the plight of two-million casino workers in the Indian Gaming Industry fits in nicely with Barack Obama's newly discovered and adopted "politics of pragmatism."

Surprise, surprise; The New York Times has been a proponent of the not-so-new "politics of pragmatism" for many years because it serves capitalism so well.

What is also not new is that the "Progressives for Obama" founders--- also the founders of the "New Left" who aim to become the new leaders of the "new" New Left" are also are practitioners of the "politics of pragmatism;" Tom Hayden has been a practitioner of such politics for many years as he made the transition from student radical to AIPAC poster boy to fervent supporter of Barrack Obama so easily. Together with Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Carl Davidson and a host of anti-communists they have formed "Progressives for Obama." Is it any wonder that these "Progressives for Obama" would now hail this Editorial from the preeminent mouth-piece of Wall Street... The New York Times and sing similar praises for Hilda Solis who just happens to be another cheerleader for Israel's carnage of the Palestinian people... anti-labor, imperialist sleaze really does stick together.

As for the Employee Free Choice Act... isn't it strange the New York Times does not advocate rescinding "at-will hiring, at-will firing" legislation on the books in some twenty-eight states which will render the Employee Free Choice Act useless... apparently The New York Times knows something about "at-will hiring, at-will firing" which it would like to see not discussed anymore than the "Compacts" creating the Indian Casino Industry where casino workers are treated much like the Palestinian people.

Capitalism certainly spins a deadly web upon which these parasites feed upon their trapped victims... of course, the capitalist soothsayers at The New York Times live pretty high on the hog, too, for spreading lies and confusion. And, when these capitalist soothsayers at The New York Times are not spinning their lies in the service of imperialism; they simply ignore any indignities, abuses and injustices inflicted on working people as the capitalists extend their drive for ever greater profits and control... from American Indian reservations to Gaza.

The New York Times has a lot of gall talking about workplace health and safety standards as not a word has ever been published about how working in smoke-filled casinos is destroying the health of millions of workers at some 450 casinos comprising the Indian Gaming and Hospitality Industry stretching from coast to coast like "right to work for less without any rights colonies." Gees, kind of like Puerto Rico and Gaza.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council



New York Times Editorial - December 28, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29mon1.html

There is no doubt that President-elect Barack Obama has
chosen a labor secretary who could be a transformative
force in a long-neglected arena. The question is
whether he will let her.

Hilda Solis, a United States representative from
Southern California, is the daughter of immigrant
parents with union jobs. She has been an unfailing
advocate of workers' rights during eight years in
Congress and before that, in California politics.

Ms. Solis has been a leader on traditional workplace
issues, like a higher minimum wage and an enhanced
right to form unions. She also has helped to expand the
labor agenda by sponsoring legislation to create jobs
in green technology, and in her support for community
health workers and immigration reform.

Her record in Congress dovetails with the mission of
the Labor Department, to protect and further the rights
and opportunities of working people. It also dovetails
with many of the promises Mr. Obama made during the
campaign, both in its specifics and in its focus on the
needs of America's working families.

The main issue is whether the Obama administration will
assert a forceful labor agenda in the face of certain
protests from business that now - during a recession
- is not the time to move forward.

The first and biggest test of Mr. Obama's commitment to
labor, and to Ms. Solis, will be his decision on
whether or not to push the Employee Free Choice Act in
2009. Corporate America is determined to derail the
bill, which would make it easier than it has been for
workers to form unions by requiring that employers
recognize a union if a majority of employees at a
workplace sign cards indicating they wish to organize.

Ms. Solis voted for the bill when it passed the House
in 2007. Senate Republicans prevented the bill from
coming to a vote that same year. Mr. Obama voted in
favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor and
supported it during the campaign.

The measure is vital legislation and should not be
postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the
unionized labor force push wages upward, because
nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones
that collectively bargain for increases. By giving
employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions
also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of
which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities
between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.

The argument against unions - that they unduly burden
employers with unreasonable demands - is one that
corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the
recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing
the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced
unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no
evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market
of a recession actually makes unions all the more
important. Without a united front, workers will have
even less bargaining power in the recession than they
had during the growth years of this decade, when they
largely failed to get raises even as productivity and
profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only
prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.

Another question clouding the labor agenda is whether
Mr. Obama will give equal weight to worker concerns -
from reforming health care to raising the minimum wage
- while the financial crisis is still playing out.
Most members of his economic team are veterans of the
Clinton administration who tilt toward Wall Street. In
the Clinton era, financial issues routinely trumped
labor concerns. If Mr. Obama's campaign promises are to
be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama's
creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be
led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including
Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an
encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given
short shrift.

There are many nonlegislative issues on the agenda for
Ms. Solis. Safety standards must be updated: in the
last eight years, the Labor Department has issued only
one new safety rule of its own accord; it issued a few
others only after being compelled by Congress or the
courts. Overtime rules that were weakened in 2004 need
to be restored. To enforce labor standards, the Labor
Department will need more staff and more money, both of
which have been cut deeply by President Bush.

Only the president can give the new labor secretary the
clout she will need to do well at a job that has been
done so badly for so long, at such great cost to the
quality of Americans' lives.