APWU of Iowa   

 

Chris Salinas

 ==================================================

Iowa Postal Workers Union Legislative Director
Member of the APWU, Waterloo Local 451

Home Address:
345 Purdy Street
Jesup, IA 50648-1124

Home Phone: 319-827-3313
Best time to call my home is Monday & Tuesday.
All other days should be between the hours of
6pm to 10pm CST. Otherwise leave a message

Iowa Postal Workers Union has a new website!
Stop by at www.apwuiowa.com for the latest of what
your union is doing for you. 
 

Ipwu President Bruce Clark, Congressman Bruce Braley, and IPWU Legislative Director, Chris Salinas at the Bruce, Blues & BBQ in Dubuque.

 

 

 Below, I have attached a statement which I gave at the Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee hearing today in support of Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, of which I am a cosponsor.  I hope you take the time to read my statement.

 

Your Senator,

 

Senator Tom Harkin's

Opening Statement

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Hearing

January 24, 2008

 

It is astounding to me that, in the 21^st century, women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar their male counterparts are paid.  A Government Accountability Office study found that 20 percent of that wage gap could not be explained by factors other than discrimination.

 

Of course, the Civil Rights Act outlaws such gender discrimination.  But, the Supreme Court's 5-4 verdict in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., made it extremely difficult for women to go to court to pursue these pay discrimination claims - even in cases where the discrimination is flagrant.

 

I would especially like to thank Ms. Ledbetter for being here today.  Opponents of fair pay didn't know what they were getting into by fighting Lilly Ledbetter.  She has become a tireless advocate for equal pay since she sued her employer for paying her $6,000 less than her lowest-paid male counterpart.  As we all know, the Supreme Court held that a person who has been discriminated against must file a claim within 180 days of their pay being set, even if they were not aware at the time that their pay was significantly lower than their male counterparts'.  However, Ms. Ledbetter hasn't given up.  She's determined to make sure that we change the law so no one else has to endure what she has. 

 

As Justice Ginsburg said in her forceful dissent, this is totally out of touch with the real world of the workplace.  In the real world, pay scales are often kept secret, and employees are in the dark about their co-workers' salaries.  Lacking such information, it is difficult to determine when pay discrimination begins.  Furthermore, a small pay gap tends to widen over time, only becoming noticeable when there is systemic discrimination over a period of years.    

 

So what this means is that, once the 180-day window for bringing a lawsuit has passed, the discrimination gets grandfathered-in.  This creates a free harbor for employers who have paid female workers less than men over a long period of time.  Basically, it gives the worst offenders a free pass to continue their gender discrimination.

 

Ledbetter v. Goodyear was a bad decision, and I am pleased we are moving forward on this legislative solution - to establish that the "unlawful employment practice" under the Civil Rights Act is the payment of a discriminatory salary, not the setting of the pay level.  This is a good start, but it's not enough.  If pay scales are still kept secret - if there's not transparency - how can women know if they are being discriminated against?

 

That's why we also need to pass my Fair Pay Act, which I reintroduced last April.  In addition to requiring that employers provide equal pay for equivalent jobs, my bill also requires disclosure of pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company without disclosing individual pay levels.  This will give women the information they need to identify discriminatory pay practices and negotiate better for themselves - which, in the end, could reduce the need for costly litigation in the first place.

 

I applaud Justice Ginsburg for her powerful dissent in the Ledbetter case.  But there is a broader issue, here.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with him, are taking the court in a direction that cramps and limits the interpretation of our civil rights laws.  This is just what I predicted when I voted against these two new members of the Court. 

 

Moreover, there is something unseemly when narrow majorities of five male Supreme Court justices are taking away women's reproductive rights and narrowly interpreting women's civil rights.  This is exactly why we need more diversity on the Court - and why we need more justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, and Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer who also sided with Ms. Ledbetter.  They need more colleagues who have a genuine passion for justice and fairness, especially for those in the shadows of American life. 

 

 

Statement on extending

unemployment benefits

Senator Tom Harkin

January 23, 2008

 

Mr. PRESIDENT.  I rise in support of legislation introduced this week to extend unemployment benefits temporarily as a means of stimulus.  Like many of my colleagues I certainly have a list of ideas for best stimulating our struggling economy.  But unemployment insurance certainly needs to be a part of the picture.  I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for so quickly introducing this bill to extend current unemployment benefits by at least 20 weeks, and by an additional 13 weeks in states experiencing especially high unemployment rates.

 

There are two key principles this legislation addresses; first, we need to make sure that we are prudently spending money in a way that encourages an increase in actual economic activity.  Secondly, we need to help the people who are most hurt during difficult times.  We need a combination of prudent fiscal policy and human compassion. 

 

So first, it is just plain good sense to target people who are unemployed.  They are going to spend this money immediately on food and clothing and this money will very quickly churn in the local economy.  But equally importantly, the goal of stimulating the economy should be one of improving the quality of life for Americans.  The people who are in the greatest need of help, directly hurt by economic decline, are those who have lost their jobs.  It only makes sense that we make their needs a priority.

 

I think that this period of economic difficulty also highlights the need to pass the broader unemployment reform efforts that Senator Kennedy is spearheading.  While this stimulus measure will help many people who are unemployed, we need to cover part time workers who have lost their jobs, and make sure we are counting all recent periods of work toward unemployment eligibility and levels.

 

Extending unemployment benefits is regularly employed to stimulate a flagging economy, and these payments have been proven to quickly add demand to the economy.  I hope that we are all in agreement that this is an essential component of any stimulus package.

 

 

 Legis.News -- Inside the Iowa Legislature, January 18, 2008

By Speaker of the House Pat Murphy

THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET

Governor Culver's proposed budget for the next fiscal year maintains
our
progress in education, health care, renewable energy and workforce
development to support middle class Iowans.  He meets our commitment to
fund the second year of the teacher salary increase and expand
preschool
programs.  He includes the second year of funding for the Iowa Power
Fund, to maintain and improve Iowa's position as a leader in the
emerging alternative energy industry. 

Consistent with the recommendation of the Legislature's affordable
health insurance commission, he wants to add $4.4 million to expand
HAWK-I and Medicaid to cover 7,500 more uninsured children.  And there
should be enough money in the budget to avoid any large increases in
state university tuition.  His proposed growth in the overall rate of
spending is a little less than the previous two years. 

Reflecting the conclusions of a legislative prison study committee, the
Governor's budget includes a plan to replace the aging prison at Fort
Madison and also to renovate the women's prison at Mitchellville.  At
the same time, the Governor wants to commit additional resources to
community corrections, understanding that a properly-funded community
system can improve public safety and avert the need for additional
prisons in the future.

The law requires the Governor to present the Legislature with a
balanced
budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, and he's done that.  For
the General Assembly, this is just the starting point in the budget
process.  The eight legislative budget subcommittees, which each
oversee
different segments of the state budget, will meet over the next six
weeks.  We'll dig into the Governor's budget and make some changes
before we adjourn.  We'll look closely at some programs, like community
colleges, where we might want to add funding.  Our focus will again be
on helping middle class families. One thing that won't change is that
the budget will be balanced and the state's reserve funds will remain
healthy.

*************************************************************
2008 LEGISLATIVE SURVEY

If you haven't filled out the 2008 Legislative Session survey yet,
please follow the link below to share your thoughts. I want to hear
what
issues are important to you!

www.reppatmurphy.com/surveys

*************************************************************
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS

Last year, when Iowa Chief Justice Marcia Ternus delivered her "State
of
the Judiciary" address, she asked the Governor and the Legislature to
focus resources on children who are caught-up in the juvenile court and
foster care systems.  This week, when she returned to address the
General Assembly, she thanked lawmakers for adding enough money last
year to establish a system whereby a child in foster care can be
assigned to the same judge throughout the time the child is in foster
care.  Also, she praised last year's initiative to expand the Court
Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program to all 99 counties.  CASAs
are
trained volunteers who serve as advocates for children in the juvenile
system.

Her address this year again focused on children.  She noted that
juvenile court officers, utilizing a range of community-based services
such as supervision, counseling and addiction treatment, can reduce
delinquency in many cases and help juveniles who have committed
delinquent acts become law-abiding adults.  While cautioning that there
are some "hardened juvenile delinquents" who cannot be helped with this
approach, she called for more juvenile court officers, two more judges,
and funding for mental health treatment.  I'd like to see the
Legislature follow-through on at least some of the court's requests. 

Justice Ternus also indicated that the judiciary is working to expand
the use of drug courts.  She noted that addiction is often an
underlying
cause of illegal activity, and that the problem-solving approach of
drug
courts is often more successful than punitive measures.  We've worked
to
expand drug courts in recent years, and our support will likely
continue. 

*************************************************************
ABOUT PAT MURPHY

Pat Murphy is the Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives. He is
serving his ninth term representing Dubuque.  Before serving as
Speaker,
Rep. Murphy spent three years as Democratic Leader and nine years as
the
top-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

*************************************************************
CONTACT INFORMATION

For more information and news from the Iowa House of Representatives,
visit our website at www.iowahouse.org

 

 

To all Iowa locals and members,

This is an informational post on the voting record for HR 976, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program is for providing health insurance for uninsured or under-insured children and provides states with funding for this program.

Recently the extension has been expanded to include more children and more funding.  This bill passed both House (265-159 -- 12 short of veto proof) and Senate (67-29).

Currently the President is threatening to veto this bill. I ask everyone to write to the President and express that he should sign this bill, HR976, into law. Here is the information to write a letter to the President:

The White House
Attn: President Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Or use the email : comments@whitehouse.gov

 

Or Phone number: 202-456-1111

Here is the Congressional and Senate voting record for the state of Iowa for HR976:

HOUSE: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll906.xml
Bruce Braley 1st District YEA
David Loebsack 2nd District YEA
Leonard Boswell 3rd District YEA
Tom Latham 4th District YEA
Steven King 5th District NAY


SENATE: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00353
Tom Harkin YEA
Charles Grassley YEA

Please write your letters to your Congressman and Senators to show appreciation to those who voted for this bill. A few hundred children in this state will benefit from this program.

If your representative is King, write a letter to express your disappointment of his vote and let him know you'll be watching his other votes in the future.

For information on where to write to them, go to the following websites for more information:

www.house.gov : for your House Representative
www.senate.gov : for both Senators.

Thanks for your time,
Chris Salinas

 

 

All COPA solicitations, in publications or personal appeals, should be accompanied by a "disclaimer" that gives assurances that all contributions are voluntary and that no favor will be bestowed or withheld as a result of a contribution or the failure to make a contribution. The following language, which is on the APWU COPA contribution form, should be reprinted in any publication or correspondence urging COPA contributions:

Contributions or gifts to COPA are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. COPA will use the contributions it receives for political purposes, including making contributions to candidates for federal, state, and local offices, and addressing political issues of public importance. Contributions to COPA are voluntary. More or less than the suggested amount may be given, and the amount given or the refusal to give will not benefit or disadvantage the person being solicited. Federal law requires political action committees to report the name, mailing address, occupation, and employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year.

 

 

To Contribute to COPA through PostalEase

1. Dial 1-877-477-3272

2. Press #1 for PostalEase

3. When prompted, enter your employee Identification Number (EIN)

4. When prompted again, enter your USPS PIN number. If you do not know your PIN number, call PostalEasr, 1-877-477-3272, press #1 for PostalEase, when prompted enter your social security number, when prompted for your PIN, pause, thenpress #2, your PIN will be mailed to you.)

5. When prompted choose option #2 (to select payrool allotments)

6. When prompted, choose option #1 (to select the type of allotment)

7. When prompted press #2 to continue.

8. When prompted, press #3 to "add" the allotment.

9. When prompted, add routing number 054001220

10. When prompted, enter the COPA account number 29320001 followed by your social security number (no hyphens; 17 digits total) press #1 if correct.

11. When prompted, press #1 for checking

12. When prompted for the dollar amount enter your choice for a bi-weekly allotment; press #1 if correct.

13. When prompted, press #1 to process; at this point you will be provided with a confirmation number and the start date of the allotment. Record the confirmation number and the start date.

14. Press #1 to repeat or

#9 to end the call

Legis.News -- Inside the Iowa Legislature, January 25, 2008

By Speaker of the House Pat Murphy

FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY

As the U.S. Congress and the President are announcing an economic
stimulus package to ward off a possible recession, Iowa's economy
appears to be doing better than the nation as a whole, at least in part
due to several legislative initiatives intended to stabilize the
state's
economy and help bolster the income of middle-class Iowans.  Also, the
agricultural economy is booming in large part because sharply rising
oil
prices have led to a surge in alternative energy and biofuels
production.

Last session we established the Iowa Power Fund - financed with $75
million spread over three years - to promote alternative energy
research
and production in Iowa.  We've recently seen new or expanded biofuel
production facilities popping up all over the state, as well as wind
turbine production facilities in Fort Madison, West Branch, Newton and
Cedar Rapids, bringing thousands of new jobs.  Meanwhile, corn and
soybean prices are hitting record levels.  I'll be the first to admit
that high corn prices don't take the sting out of gasoline at three
bucks a gallon.  Still, if we can seize the opportunity to become a
leader in renewable fuels and alternative energy production, we may be
in better shape than the rest of the country.

Hundreds of thousands of Iowa taxpayers will enjoy more spending money
this year, due to several tax cuts enacted over the last two
legislative
sessions.  Last year, the General Assembly approved a $10 million
expansion of the state's Earned Income Tax Credit that goes to
low-income families.  That means an estimated 64,000 Iowans will be
eligible for either a tax cut or a refund. 

In addition, 430,000 seniors will experience a significant reduction in
their state income taxes.  Iowans over 65 will see a 32 percent
decrease
in taxes on their social security income and they won't pay any state
tax on the first $18,000 ($24,000 for couples) of other income.
Finally, raising the minimum wage, enacted last year, means that
257,000
Iowans are getting an income boost that will ripple through the
economy.

*************************************************************
2008 LEGISLATIVE SURVEY

The 2008 Legislative Session starts on Monday, January 14th and I want
to hear what issues are important to you. Please take time to fill out
our 2008 Legislative Survey on-line at:

www.reppatmurphy.com/surveys

*************************************************************
PROTECTING RETURNING VETERANS' JOBS

With Iraq war veteran State Representative Ray Zirkelbach presiding in
the House Speaker's chair, the House passed legislation this week to
make sure that Iowans who are called to active military duty are not
penalized in their civilian jobs.  The issue arose last summer when a
returning member of the Iowa Air Reserves contacted legislators about a
loss of employment.  Although most employers have made sure that
veterans do not experience any loss of employment status as a result of
being away from the job while serving in the military, legislators
wanted to make sure that it never happens in Iowa.  (Even though
federal
law already protects veterans' job security, the federal process can be
slow to respond.)  The main part of House File 2065 - which passed the
House 95-0 on January 24 -- clarifies that returning troops are
entitled
to their previous job with no loss of seniority, status, or
compensation. 

Another part of the bill clarifies a provision in Iowa law that applies
to employees of state or local governments.  Iowa members of the
military are entitled to 30 days paid leave for military service - such
as National Guard training.  For most, this is simple to calculate.
  But
many firefighters work 24 hours on duty at a time.  At least one city
has concluded that every day a National Guard member is on active duty
equals three days of city time (eight hours X 3 = 24 hrs).  As a
result,
these service men and women are getting only ten days paid leave rather
than the 30 days they are entitled to.  This legislation makes it clear
that one day of military leave counts as just one day of regular
employment, no matter how many hours are worked on the civilian job.
This legislation was managed on the House floor by Rep. McKinley Bailey
(D-Webster City), who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

.

Iowa’s "Right to Work" law is bad for our children and the American way of life.

By Chris Salinas, IPWU Legislative Director

     It is surprising to see how many people don’t understand the "right to work" law in this state and the arguments surrounding it when the Fair Share bill was introduced. The current law should really be called "Right to Suffer" or "Right to Starve" as many non-union workplaces make on average P and less than unionized workplaces.

 

     Many non-union workers in this state, under the current law, actually cost taxpayers more money by paying more for services provided for workers that don’t make a livable wage. These services include food stamps, low income housing and so on.

 

This in turn means that these workers can’t afford health insurance for their families, especially for children of single parent households. This places those children into the state health program that cost tax dollars as well.

 

    Basically the taxpayer is subsidizing business that won’t pay livable wages or provide adequate health care insurance. While these same businesses reap profit after profit. Wal-Mart is a great example of this, having the majority of their workforce in Iowa on some type of welfare roles.

 

     Workers that are tired of living in this state of existence at their jobs start looking for alternatives like a different job, work more hours at a second job or they may try to unionize their workplace.

 

     When workers decide on unionizing their workplaces, many go through tough fights for their right to bargain for better wages, health benefits and the like. It’s not easy to unionize under the current circumstances we live in, but when they do unionize it is a well fought fight.

 

     But because of the federal law, those who don’t believe in the union that is established, they have the right to choose not to join. In turn, those non-members get all the benefits the union provides for its members. These non-members are the first to use other services of the union as well.

 

     To add insult to injury, Iowa’s "right to work" law doesn’t allow the union to charge a fee for services provided like grievance filings or contract negotiations. These services do cost the union money and the membership of that union are paying for these freeloaders. Is that fair? All this does is weaken an established union with the costs of protecting workers. In turn, making the union unable to provide for its membership. The union fails and the vicious cycle continues as membership drops until the union doesn’t exist.

 

     In the last session of the Iowa legislature, there was a chance to remove a portion of the law to allow unions to charge a fee for services provided to non-members. It was the Fair Share bill that would have done this, but was demonized into something it wasn’t.

 

     The Fair Share bill was simple, it amends the "right to work" law to allow unions to charge a fee to non-members if negotiated in collective bargaining only. The fee amount would be determined by negotiations with the employer and the union. The non-member would have had the right to contest any portion of the fee if he/she could show they don’t use those services being charged.

 

But, with the misleading ads, the fear factor being generated by business groups and many people not understanding the state law as it is, the Fair Share bill went to the wayside. A blow to workers, children and those who would have benefited.

 

     In the next Iowa session, this issue may come up again. If it does, take the time and read the law. Don’t rely on those who say it is a bad thing. Those that say it’s bad, must dislike the American way of life.

 

It’s the American way of life to fight for what you believe in and have the tools to help you in the fight. Under the current law, predatory companies have the upper hand. We, as union workers, need to change that. We need to take an active approach in letting our representatives know we want this law.

 

It is also the American way to make sure our children can be taken care of and for them to have just as good (or better) way of life in their future. If not, our children will be trampled on by these same companies.

 

     Our children need our help to provide them the security and livelihood for their future that we have enjoyed. In turn, these same laws will help them when they have their own children.