Profile Image

Info

cluw.org

Our Facebook Page (454 fans)

815 16TH ST NW 2ND FL S
WASHINGTON DC 20006

202-508-6958

Contacts

This organization’s two contacts are shared only with Congressional legislative staff.

If you have a @mail.house.gov or @senate.gov email address, register to get instant access to this information.

Don’t see your organization on POPVOX? Any U.S. nonprofit organization or community group can get listed.

Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW)

Mission: The Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) is a non-partisan organization within the trade union movement formed in 1974 to articulate the concerns of working women.

Take Action with Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW)

Campaign Priority Bills and Proposals POPVOX Sentiment Take Action
S. 1737
view

(Letter provided to POPVOX by Congressional office)

March 31, 2014 ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 1737

20% 80%

591 total users

Support
S. 744
view

On 6/27/2013 S 744 passed the Senate.

CLUW ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 744

12% 88%

11672 total users

Support
H.R. 1797
view

"June 19, 2013: Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in opposing H.R. 1797

68% 32%

433 total users

Oppose
S. 84
view

“May 31, 2013

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 84

36% 64%

272 total users

Support
H.R. 377
view

“May 31, 2013

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 377

44% 56%

397 total users

Support
S. 942
view

62% of women in the United States who gave birth ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 942

42% 58%

19 total users

Support
H.R. 1286
view

"May 9, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 1286

39% 61%

141 total users

Support
S. 631
view

"May 9, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 631

39% 61%

97 total users

Support
H.R. 1406
view

May 6, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in opposing H.R. 1406

29% 71%

285 total users

Oppose
H.J.Res. 43
view

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.J.Res. 43

58% 42%

404 total users

Support
S.J.Res. 15
view

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S.J.Res. 15

65% 35%

173 total users

Support
S. 815
view

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 815

5% 95%

4424 total users

Support
H.R. 1755
view

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 1755

26% 74%

290 total users

Support
S.Con.Res. 15

82% 18%

33 total users

Support
H.Con.Res. 34

94% 6%

36 total users

Support
H.R. 1565
view

According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 1565

12% 88%

1707 total users

Support
H.R. 1010
view

“It has been four years since minimum wage workers received ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 1010

24% 76%

1200 total users

Support
S. 460
view

“It has been four years since minimum wage workers received ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 460

24% 76%

865 total users

Support
H.R. 803
view

March 1, 2013 “...The SKILLS Act (H.R. 803), would ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in opposing H.R. 803

74% 26%

202 total users

Oppose
S.J.Res. 10
view

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S.J.Res. 10

33% 67%

288 total users

Support
H.R. 961
view

“...Each year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) calculates the ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 961

39% 60%

76 total users

Support
H.R. 630
view

“The Postal Service Protection Act, as embodied by the bills ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 630

81% 19%

176 total users

Support
S. 316
view

“The Postal Service Protection Act, as embodied by the bills ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 316

74% 26%

187 total users

Support
H.R. 676
view

The Coalition of Labor Union Women has been on record ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 676

57% 43%

893 total users

Support
H.Res. 30

65% 35%

103 total users

Support
H.R. 438
view

“…The Fair Pay Act would address the more systematic forms ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing H.R. 438

39% 61%

151 total users

Support
S. 168
view

“…The Fair Pay Act would address the more systematic forms ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in endorsing S. 168

47% 53%

206 total users

Support
H.Res. 19

20% 80%

331 total users

Support
view

Dear Members of Congress:

The undersigned organizations represent millions of ...

view the full position statement

Join Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in opposing Sequestration

72% 28%

1631 total users

Oppose

Detailed Legislative Agenda

S. 1737: The Minimum Wage Fairness Act

(Letter provided to POPVOX by Congressional office)

March 31, 2014

Dear Senator:

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the 237 undersigned organizations, we urge you to vote for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). The bill is a common sense reform that is a key part of the nation’s economic recovery and is needed more than ever to address the shift toward low-wage jobs for working families.

The Minimum Wage Fairness Act takes necessary steps to help working families make ends meet, sustain consumer spending, and spur economic recovery. The bill would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 by 2016, in three increments of 95 cents each. Further, the bill would adjust the minimum wage each year to keep pace with the rising cost of living. Finally, the bill would also raise the minimum wage for tipped workers, which has been frozen at a meager $2.13 per hour for more than 20 years. These changes will make a significant difference in the lives of millions of low-wage workers and their families and help grow our economy.

A raise in the minimum wage is desperately needed because pay for America’s workers remains stagnant, while the cost of living continues to rise. In 2007, Congress raised the federal minimum wage by $2.10 per hour to $7.25 as a first step toward achieving its purpose as an anti-poverty measure. Had the federal minimum wage kept pace with the cost of living over the past 40 years, it would be $10.71 per hour today. Instead, the current hourly rate of $7.25 translates to an annual income of just $15,080 per year for full-time work, which is below the poverty line for a family of three.


Raising the minimum wage would generate economic activity. Minimum wage increases stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending, without adding to stale and federal budget deficits. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would generate $22 billion m new economic activity in communities across the country. Despite fears about the adverse effect of a minimum wage increase on businesses, studies demonstrate that when the minimum wage has been increased, there has been no significant reduction in employment or slowing of job growth, even when the economy was struggling. Strengthening the minimum wage can help build a sustainable economic recovery without increasing
costs for taxpayers.


Raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. The best economic research and real world experiences with minimum wage increases confirm dial raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which reviewed the past two decades of research on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, “the weight of the evidence points to little or no effect of minimum wage increases on job growth.” A recent Congressional Budget Report contradicts the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that raising the federal minimum wage will actually improve our economy and create jobs. The experience of businesses and scholarly studies show
that what companies lose when they pay more is often offset by lower turnover and increased productivity.


Raising the minimum wage has public support. Raising the minimum wage has received broad support. Overall, 73 percent of the public favors raising the federal minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. Further, states around the country are enacting minimum wage hikes.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wages higher than the current federal rate of $7.25 per hour and legislation to raise and/or index the minimum wage has been introduced in several states. Thee American economy needs a strong national wage floor to protect workers in all regions of the country.


Raising the minimum wage is a civil rights imperative. Providing America's lowest paid workers with a raise is a critical civil and human rights issue given the impact it would have on women, African Americans, Latinos, and other minority populations, including the Native American, AAPI, LGBT and
disability communities, whose poverty rates are also disproportionately high. Women and communities of color are disproportionately represented among the 30 million Americans who will benefit from a higher minimum wage. According to the Economic Policy Institute:


•Women comprise 49 percent of U.S. workers, yet make up 56 percent of workers who would be affected by a potential minimum-wage increase.


•African Americans make up only 11 percent of the workforce, but are 14 percent of those that would benefit from a higher minimum wage.


•Hispanics represent only 15 percent of the workforce, yet comprise 25 percent of those that would benefit from a higher minimum wage.

Setting the minimum wage at an appropriate level can promote economic growth while strengthening the ability of low- and middle-wage workers to have quality jobs. We urge you to vote for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which will help provide America's lowest paid workers with an urgently needed raise while boosting the consumer spending that fuels the economy.

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-1737-support
S. 744: The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill

On 6/27/2013 S 744 passed the Senate.

CLUW supports immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. CLUW believes that immigration reform should allow aspiring citizens the opportunity to fully contribute to our families, communities, and economy.

The Corker-Hoeven amendment, which has been added to the bill as a compromise, further militarizes the border and delays access to affordable health care to immigrants for their first 15 years of residence, an addition that CLUW opposes.

“As our nation moves forward with immigration reform, we the undersigned Latinas, immigrant women, and families and allies, are deeply concerned that the health care needs of immigrant women and children have been left behind. Today, many immigrant women in our communities struggle to obtain the necessary health care to live full, productive lives – and many live without any health care options at all. Under the immigration bill that just passed the Senate (S. 744), these families would be forced to wait 15 years or longer before seeing a doctor—despite the fact that they’d be working and paying into health care programs the whole time.”

The previous summary is a quote from the following petition: http://www.change.o...immigrant-women-now

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-744-support
H.R. 1797: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

"June 19, 2013: Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228 to 196 in favor of H.R. 1797, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” an act that prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion twenty weeks after conception. This abortion ban includes only limited exceptions that include some cases of rape and incest, and cases when a mother’s life is threatened, excluding risks to a mother’s health.

H.R. 1797 conflicts with the constitutionally protected right granted to women through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 which gives women the right to terminate a pregnancy up until a doctor determines fetal viability, usually 24 weeks after conception.

CLUW, with its strong commitment to the protection of women’s health (including reproductive choice), opposes H.R. 1797, which strips a woman of both her safety and her basic right to her own body. Karen J. See, CLUW National President, remarks, “It is really outrageous that with so many women currently out of work in our country, Republicans are consistently voting against pro-women, pro-family measures such as equal pay, raising the minimum wage, and paid leave and are instead focusing on legislation that would restrict women’s reproductive choice, legislation that most women oppose.”

Further progress on this legislation is doubtful, as the White House has stated its intention to veto H.R. 1797 should it come to that. This bill is not an isolated attack on women’s rights. According to NARAL Pro Choice America, 14 states have enacted 32 new measures implementing abortion restrictions this year. H.R. 1797 is the most restrictive abortion bill voted on by Congress in a decade.

CLUW will continue to educate working women about important health care issues, including reproductive health."

The previous summary is a press release written on June 19, 2013.

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1797-oppose
S. 84: The Paycheck Fairness Act

“May 31, 2013

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of a broad coalition of organizations that promote economic opportunity for women and full enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, we strongly urge you to support and co-sponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was reintroduced in the 113th Congress. The Paycheck Fairness Act has twice passed the U.S. House of Representatives, and it fell just two votes short of a Senate vote on its merits in the 111th Congress.

Congress took an important step in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. That vital law reverses the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and helps to ensure that individuals subjected to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, critical as it is, is just one of many tools needed to address unfair wage disparities.

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 to ensure that it will provide effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination. Toward that end, the

comprehensive bill bars retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages. It allows women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and ethnicity. And it also provides much needed training and technical assistance as well as data collection and research.

In this tough economy, more and more families are counting on women's earnings. Unfair pay practices make things even harder, especially for those families who rely solely on female earnings.Women continue to be paid, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. This persistent wage gap can be addressed only if women and all other workers are armed with the tools necessary to challenge discrimination against them, and employers are provided with effective incentives and technical assistance to comply with the law.

It's time to make real progress on fair pay. We urge you to co-sponsor and work to swiftly pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the National Women's Law Center, at (202) 588-5180, Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations at the American Association of University Women, at (202) 785-7720, or Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, at (202) 675-2335."

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter. The full letter can be found here: http://www.nwlc.org...letter_05.30.13.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-84-support
H.R. 377: The Paycheck Fairness Act

“May 31, 2013

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of a broad coalition of organizations that promote economic opportunity for women and full enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, we strongly urge you to support and co-sponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was reintroduced in the 113th Congress. The Paycheck Fairness Act has twice passed the U.S. House of Representatives, and it fell just two votes short of a Senate vote on its merits in the 111th Congress.

Congress took an important step in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. That vital law reverses the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and helps to ensure that individuals subjected to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, critical as it is, is just one of many tools needed to address unfair wage disparities.

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 to ensure thatit will provide effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination. Toward that end, the

comprehensive bill bars retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages. It allows women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and ethnicity. And it also provides much needed training and technical assistance as well as data collection and research.

In this tough economy, more and more families are counting on women's earnings. Unfair pay practices make things even harder, especially for those families who rely solely on female earnings.Women continue to be paid, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. This persistent wage gap can be addressed only if women and all other workers are armed with the tools necessary to challenge discrimination against them, and employers are provided with effective incentives and technical assistance to comply with the law.

It's time to make real progress on fair pay. We urge you to co-sponsor and work to swiftly pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the National Women's Law Center, at (202) 588-5180, Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations at the American Association of University Women, at (202) 785-7720, or Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, at (202) 675-2335."

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter. The full letter can be found here: http://www.nwlc.org...letter_05.30.13.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-377-support
S. 942: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

62% of women in the United States who gave birth in a one year period also worked during that time. Treating pregnant workers fairly is important to working families and is critical to our economy. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is needed to address problems many pregnant workers have on the job...

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires employers to make the same types of accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions that they already make for disabilities. It is sponsored by Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH). CLUW was one of many organizations that signed on to a letter to Congress prior to the bill being reintroduced on May 14th.

Despite the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, employers routinely deny requests for temporary work adjustments by pregnant workers. All too often pregnant women are given an impossible choice – endanger your pregnancy or lose your job. That’s because when some pregnant workers ask for adjustments in their job duties so they can continue safely working — like avoiding heavy lifting or staying off ladders—their bosses deny their requests , even when the adjustments were offered to other workers. As a result, some women who want and need to continue working throughout their pregnancies have been fired, forced to quit, or forced onto unpaid leave.

The previous summary comes from the CLUW website (cluw.org).

For more information:

http://www.national...eet.pdf?docID=10321

http://www.national...6511803?docID=11681 (Multi organization letter of May 23, 2013)

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-942-support
H.R. 1286: The Healthy Families Act

"May 9, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to support the Healthy Families Act (H.R.1286/S.631) a common sense bill that would allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days a year to recover from short-term illnesses like the flu, access preventive care, care for a sick family member or seek assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Without paid sick days, workers are forced to make impossible choices when illness strikes: stay home, lose pay and risk their jobs; or go to work sick, risk their health and spread disease to their co-workers and communities. Establishing a national paid sick days standard will help make businesses and governments more efficient while giving working families more financial stability — leading to a stronger economy for all.

The Healthy Families Act would:

• Allow workers in businesses with 15 or more employees to earn up to seven job-protected paid sick days each year to be used to recover from their own illness, access preventive care or provide care for a sick family member;

• Allow workers who are survivors of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault to use their paid sick days for recovery or to seek assistance; and

• Allow employers that already provide paid sick days or paid time off to maintain their existing policies, as long as they meet the minimums set forth in the bill for amount of time, types of use and method of use..."

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter. The full letter can be found here: http://www.national...013.pdf?docID=12241

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1286-support
S. 631: Healthy Families Act

"May 9, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to support the Healthy Families Act (H.R.1286/S.631) a common sense bill that would allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days a year to recover from short-term illnesses like the flu, access preventive care, care for a sick family member or seek assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Without paid sick days, workers are forced to make impossible choices when illness strikes: stay home, lose pay and risk their jobs; or go to work sick, risk their health and spread disease to their co-workers and communities. Establishing a national paid sick days standard will help make businesses and governments more efficient while giving working families more financial stability — leading to a stronger economy for all.

The Healthy Families Act would:

• Allow workers in businesses with 15 or more employees to earn up to seven job-protected paid sick days each year to be used to recover from their own illness, access preventive care or provide care for a sick family member;

• Allow workers who are survivors of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault to use their paid sick days for recovery or to seek assistance; and

• Allow employers that already provide paid sick days or paid time off to maintain their existing policies, as long as they meet the minimums set forth in the bill for amount of time, types of use and method of use..."

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter. The full letter can be found here: http://www.national...013.pdf?docID=12241

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-631-support
S. 47: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization

“…Reauthorizing VAWA is not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart

thing to do – making sure federal dollars go to highest priorities, address gaps, and have maximum impact.

•The bi-partisan VAWA Reauthorization bill (S.47), recently passed by the Senate with a 78-22 vote, consolidates 13existing programs into 4 to reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication, and reduces authorizations by 17% from the 2005 reauthorization levels in order to make VAWA the strongest, leanest, most cost-effective means of addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

• VAWA saved governments more than $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in the first 5 years alone. In one state (Kentucky), protective orders alone are estimated to save at least $85 million annually.

•VAWA funding will help address the current reality that far too many sexual assault victims are still without services in their communities, and many sexual assault programs often lack resources to fully meet victims’ needs - 60% of programs have waiting lists for sexual assault counseling and 30% have waiting lists for support groups.

•Additionally, there were over 170,000 unmet requests for emergency shelter in 2011 because domestic violence programs lacked sufficient resources to respond.

•S.47 maintains enhanced protections for Native, LGBT and immigrant victims. These provisions were identified as critical priorities by advocates across the country and received overwhelming bipartisan support last year in the Senate…”

Amends the Clery Act to add domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking (sex offenses arealready included) to the list of crime statistics that higher education institutions must report

•Provides increased campus responsiveness to these crimes, better protection for victims and accountability for perpetrators

The previous statement is an excerpt from a fact sheet produced by the National Task Force to Eliminate Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women and can be found here: http://www.scribd.c...WA-Updated2-24-2013

and

http://www.scribd.c...l-Summary-VAWA-3-25

(This bill was enacted March 7, 2013.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-47-support
H.R. 1406: Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

May 6, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 (H.R. 1406), a smoke-and-mirrors bill that offers a pay cut for workers without any guaranteed flexibility or time off to care for their families or themselves. As members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged, people today are struggling to meet the demands of job and family, as well as to make ends meet. Americans urgently need lawmakers to take the next step on the road to a family friendly nation. But H.R. 1406 is not what the nation needs. It is, at best, an empty promise and it would cause considerably more harm than good.

The Working Families Flexibility Act offers a false choice between time and pay. The bill’s supporters claim H.R. 1406 would give hourly workers more flexibility and time with their loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off, rather than time-and-a-half wages, as compensation for working more than 40 hours in one week (“comp time”). But the irony is that workers will only get more time with their families after they’ve spent long hours away at work. And there is nothing in H.R. 1406 that guarantees that workers will be able to use the comp time they have earned when they need it.

The worker flexibility offered by H.R. 1406 is nothing more than a mirage. That’s because this proposal gives the employer, not the employee, the “flexibility” to decide when and even if comp time can be used. The bill permits the employer to deny the request entirely if the employee’s use of comp time would “unduly disrupt” operations or to grant leave on a day other than the day requested by the employee. This means that H.R. 1406 provides no guarantee that workers can use their earned time when a child falls ill, to attend a parent- teacher conference, or to help an aging parent settle in to a nursing home. Employers can veto an employee’s request to use comp time even in cases of urgent need.

H.R. 1406 would put workers at very real risk and provides an interest-free loan to employers. An employee who does not accept comp time could be penalized with fewer

hours, bad shifts and loss of overtime hours. And because it is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, there is a significant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime hours – paid for in future comp time – to get work done. It would permit employers to defer compensation for unused comp time for as long as 13 months, creating an interest-free loan for employers and hardships for workers.

H.R. 1406 provides few protections for workers and no additional resources to the U.S. Department of Labor for education, investigations and enforcement. While this bill adds

significant new provisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), it provides no additional funds for the education and enforcement efforts the new provisions will require. Workers would have few remedies in cases of employer misconduct or bankruptcy. The problem of wage theft (the non-payment or underpayment of wages for hours worked) would be exacerbated by making it easier for employers to avoid overtime compensation obligations.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) currently allows employers to provide workers with flexibility and time off without compromising their right to be paid fairly for the hours they work. The types of flexibility allowable under the FLSA include alternative start and end times, compressed or variable work hours within a week, split shifts, work at multiple locations and paid or unpaid time off. The proponents of H.R. 1406 set up a false dichotomy that would force workers to choose between flexibility and overtime pay when, in reality, the FLSA does nothing to prevent employers from offering both.

Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors, Congress should focus on policy solutions that have been proven to work. We urge Congress to adopt policies that will provide families with the economic security and the time that they need:

The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631), which makes earned paid sick days available to millions of workers;

Paid family and medical leave insurance modeled on successful state programs in California and New Jersey;

Expanded access to the FMLA for more workers for more reasons, and so parents could, in fact, have the time they need to attend parent-teacher conferences without risking their jobs;

The Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 1010/S. 460) which brings the minimum wage back to a reasonable level and, in so doing, provides businesses with customers, improves our economy, and help locals communities thrive;

The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377/S. 84), which helps close the gender-based wage gap; and

Measures to encourage fairer and more predictable work hours and prohibit mandatory overtime.

Workers simply should not have to put in extra time beyond a 40-hour week and forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their loved ones. We urge Congress to reject H.R. 1406 and instead adopt family friendly policies that provide true flexibility for working families, not an empty promise that would make life appreciably harder for families that are already struggling.

(Letter provided to POPVOX by Congressional office.)

http://www.national...NAL.pdf?docID=12541

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1406-oppose
H.J.Res. 43: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Simple Justice – Long Overdue

The Equal Rights Amendment is not yet in the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA, affirming the equal application of the Constitution to all persons regardless of their sex, was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. After women’s right to vote was guaranteed by the 19th Amendment in 1920, she proposed the ERA as the next step in confirming "equal justice under law" for all citizens.

The ERA was introduced into every Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution.

The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since 1982. Beginning in 1994 with introduction of the first three-state strategy bill in Congress, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:

• the traditional process outlined in Article V of the Constitution, requiring passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states, and

• ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA during the 1972-82 ratification campaign, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this non-traditional process could withstand legal challenge and put the ERA into the Constitution.”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the following website: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hjres-43-support
S.J.Res. 15: A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Simple Justice – Long Overdue

The Equal Rights Amendment is not yet in the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA, affirming the equal application of the Constitution to all persons regardless of their sex, was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. After women’s right to vote was guaranteed by the 19th Amendment in 1920, she proposed the ERA as the next step in confirming "equal justice under law" for all citizens.

The ERA was introduced into every Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution.

The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since 1982. Beginning in 1994 with introduction of the first three-state strategy bill in Congress, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:

• the traditional process outlined in Article V of the Constitution, requiring passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states, and

• ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA during the 1972-82 ratification campaign, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this non-traditional process could withstand legal challenge and put the ERA into the Constitution.”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the following website: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

In 1996, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress issued a memorandum ("Equal Rights Amendment: Ratification Issues") concluding that the 203-year ratification period for the Madison Amendment does in fact have implications for the three-state strategy, and the question is more political than constitutional…“

The previous summary comes from the following website: http://www.equalrig...nt.org/strategy.htm

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-sjres-15-support
S. 815: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression. But people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) face widespread discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of LGBT people experience some form of discrimination and harassment on the job.

Additional issues that LGBT workers face include:

• denied access to health benefits, pension and other benefits for their same-sex

partners;

• denied access to family and bereavement leave;

• denied access to needed health coverage.

Workplace education can help workers value the contribution of LGBT co-workers and remove any misconceptions held about those colleagues’ differences. Such education can promote understanding of the needs of LGBT workers, such as beneficiary benefits for domestic partners, FMLA, inclusive sick leave and bereavement leave, non-discrimination and anti-harassment clauses, and transgender inclusive health care benefits.

Currently, not only can persons be denied employment due to sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but they can be fired if it is discovered while employed, thus swelling the rolls of the unemployed seeking assistance.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would protect those who have jobs or are applying for jobs against unfair, unreasonable, and irrational discrimination in the workplace. Fighting to advance protections for a discriminated minority is one of the roles of labor unions.

http://www.cluw.org...olutions%202011.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-815-support
H.R. 1755: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression. But people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) face widespread discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of LGBT people experience some form of discrimination and harassment on the job.

Additional issues that LGBT workers face include:

• denied access to health benefits, pension and other benefits for their same-sex

partners;

• denied access to family and bereavement leave;

• denied access to needed health coverage.

Workplace education can help workers value the contribution of LGBT co-workers and remove any misconceptions held about those colleagues’ differences. Such education can promote understanding of the needs of LGBT workers, such as beneficiary benefits for domestic partners, FMLA, inclusive sick leave and bereavement leave, non-discrimination and anti-harassment clauses, and transgender inclusive health care benefits.

Currently, not only can persons be denied employment due to sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but they can be fired if it is discovered while employed, thus swelling the rolls of the unemployed seeking assistance.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would protect those who have jobs or are applying for jobs against unfair, unreasonable, and irrational discrimination in the workplace. Fighting to advance protections for a discriminated minority is one of the roles of labor unions.

http://www.cluw.org...olutions%202011.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1755-support
S.Con.Res. 15: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for ...

"Social Security’s cost of living adjustments (COLA) to monthly benefits are designed to help retirees keep up with the rising living standards and costs. COLAs currently are tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners (CPI-W), which surveys price changes in the average set of goods purchased by urban wage earners and clerical workers.

The CPI-W formula does not protect seniors’ purchasing power because it fails to account for the fact that seniors spend two to three times as much of their budget on medical care than younger households. Yet, many in Congress are seriously considering cutting your Social Security benefits by now tying the COLA to the Chained CPI(C-CPI-U), a smaller measure of inflation. While many will describe this change as simply technical, it is a change that would result in big, lifetime losses in benefits for the average Social Security beneficiary.

Why is the Chained CPI bad for seniors?

According to the Social Security Actuary, moving to a chained CPI would mean an immediate benefit cut. According to Social Security Works, an average earner retiring in 2011 at age 65 would lose over $6,000 over 15 years if the chained CPI were adopted. The chained CPI assumes that a lower COLA is acceptable because consumers substitute cheaper products when prices go up. Health care costs, however, consume a large amount of seniors’ income. These costs cannot simply be substituted with a cheaper version. A senior cannot just substitute triple bypass surgery with a double because it’s cheaper.The chained CPI ignores this reality and instead tries to balance the budget on the backs of our nation’s seniors..."

The previous summary is an excerpt from the Alliance for Retired American's Fact Sheet which can be found here:

http://libcloud.s3....ained_CPI_FINAL.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-sconres-15-support
H.Con.Res. 34: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security ...

"Social Security’s cost of living adjustments (COLA) to monthly benefits are designed to help retirees keep up with the rising living standards and costs. COLAs currently are tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners (CPI-W), which surveys price changes in the average set of goods purchased by urban wage earners and clerical workers.

The CPI-W formula does not protect seniors’ purchasing power because it fails to account for the fact that seniors spend two to three times as much of their budget on medical care than younger households. Yet, many in Congress are seriously considering cutting your Social Security benefits by now tying the COLA to the Chained CPI(C-CPI-U), a smaller measure of inflation. While many will describe this change as simply technical, it is a change that would result in big, lifetime losses in benefits for the average Social Security beneficiary.

Why is the Chained CPI bad for seniors?

According to the Social Security Actuary, moving to a chained CPI would mean an immediate benefit cut. According to Social Security Works, an average earner retiring in 2011 at age 65 would lose over $6,000 over 15 years if the chained CPI were adopted. The chained CPI assumes that a lower COLA is acceptable because consumers substitute cheaper products when prices go up. Health care costs, however, consume a large amount of seniors’ income. These costs cannot simply be substituted with a cheaper version. A senior cannot just substitute triple bypass surgery with a double because it’s cheaper.The chained CPI ignores this reality and instead tries to balance the budget on the backs of our nation’s seniors..."

The previous summary is an excerpt from the Alliance for Retired American's Fact Sheet which can be found here:

http://libcloud.s3....ained_CPI_FINAL.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hconres-34-support
H.R. 1565: Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013

According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,

“…H.R. 1565, introduced by Congressman Peter King (R-NY) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) mirrors the bipartisan Manchin/Toomey Senate compromise measure that would require background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings, including at gun shows, on the internet and in classified ads. While the Senate bill fell 5 votes short of passage last month due to a procedural hurdle, Senators promise to have another vote soon...”

“…Due to loopholes in current law, domestic violence abusers are easily able to obtain firearms through private sales and transfers, even though they should be prohibited from doing so under federal law. Over 6.6 million guns are transferred each year through private transfer not subject to background checks and just the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. The King/Thompson bill would help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, reduce violence and save women’s lives…”

The CLUW National Executive Board adopted the following resolution March 16, 2013:

Resolution in support of improved gun control and safety:

Whereas, the United States has the highest rate of gun violence of all industrialized countries; and

Whereas, recent incidents of mass murder by assault weapons has once again raised the issue of the availability of military style weapons; and

Whereas, the loss of funding to address mental health issues has added to the number of individuals on the streets whose access to weapons can wreak havoc in our communities; and

Whereas, the elimination of public sector, first-responder jobs has resulted in a huge burden on cities and states in their ability to fight the increased number of personal assaults and other crimes perpetrated with firearms; and

Whereas, the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) has a long history of standing in support of those issues that provide a healthy life for working women and their families and in our communities; now,

Therefore, be it resolved, that CLUW urges Congress to pass a comprehensive gun control act that reinstates and strengthens the previously successful assault weapons ban, requires background checks for all gun sales and closes existing loopholes in the current process, and limits magazines on weapons to no more than ten rounds.

Be it further resolved, that CLUW supports increased funding for COPS Grants, especially for those communities who have suffered public sector layoffs, and increased resources for law enforcement to provide the tools to prevent and prosecute violent crimes committed with deadly weapons.

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1565-support
H.R. 1010: The Fair Minimum Wage Act

“It has been four years since minimum wage workers received a pay raise. Since then, the federal minimum wage has lost value. It has not kept up with the cost of living or workers’ increased productivity. Income inequality is on the rise. Record-breaking corporate profits have not trickled down to increased wages. Working families on the minimum wage must rely on government assistance to make ends meet. In no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford rent for a two-bedroom apartment.

This is not right. It is not sustainable for working families or our nation’s economy. It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. It’s time for $10.10.The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 will:

• Increase the minimum wage over three years from $7.25/hour to $10.10/ hour

• Index future annual increases to inflation thereafter.

• Raise the tipped minimum wage from $2.13/hour to $7.07/hour...”

Why?

1. The minimum wage is about valuing and respecting work.

2. The real value of the minimum wage is at historic lows

3. A $10.10 minimum wage will give tens of millions of American workers a pay raise.

4. Workers who will get a pay raise are those that need it the most.

5. This minimum wage increase is expected to increase GDP by $33 billion.

6. Workers who rely on tips deserve the first increase in their minimum wage since 1991.

7. Indexing minimum wage increases to inflation will take partisan politics out of future increases.

The previous summary is an excerpt from a fact sheet which can be found here: http://democrats.ed...agerFORMATTED_0.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1010-support
S. 460: The Fair Minimum Wage Act

“It has been four years since minimum wage workers received a pay raise. Since then, the federal minimum wage has lost value. It has not kept up with the cost of living or workers’ increased productivity. Income inequality is on the rise. Record-breaking corporate profits have not trickled down to increased wages. Working families on the minimum wage must rely on government assistance to make ends meet. In no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford rent for a two-bedroom apartment.

This is not right. It is not sustainable for working families or our nation’s economy. It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. It’s time for $10.10.The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 will:

• Increase the minimum wage over three years from $7.25/hour to $10.10/ hour

• Index future annual increases to inflation thereafter.

• Raise the tipped minimum wage from $2.13/hour to $7.07/hour...”

Why?

1. The minimum wage is about valuing and respecting work.

2. The real value of the minimum wage is at historic lows

3. A $10.10 minimum wage will give tens of millions of American workers a pay raise.

4. Workers who will get a pay raise are those that need it the most.

5. This minimum wage increase is expected to increase GDP by $33 billion.

6. Workers who rely on tips deserve the first increase in their minimum wage since 1991.

7. Indexing minimum wage increases to inflation will take partisan politics out of future increases.

The previous summary is an excerpt from a fact sheet which can be found here: http://democrats.ed...agerFORMATTED_0.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-460-support
H.R. 803: SKILLS Act

March 1, 2013 “...The SKILLS Act (H.R. 803), would move workforce programming in the wrong direction. Such a one-size-fits-all system risks becoming an underfunded system that lacks the resources and sophistication needed to meet the unique needs of certain individuals who must overcome population-specific employment challenges....”

Instead, the Workforce Stakeholders Group supports the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) as it is “…an obvious immediate opportunity to make needed improvements that will ensure that our workforce is prepared for the jobs employers need them to perform today and tomorrow...”

WIA has made a large impact in recent years, which shows that the dismantling of this program would have negative consequences in the workforce.

“...WIA programs have played a pivotal role in helping jobseekers and employers rebound from the “Great Recession.” The latest quarterly reporting data provided by the Department of Labor indicates that more than 8 million jobseekers have utilized WIA formula programs over the past year (DOL, WIA system quarterly reports ending March 31, 2012), a dramatic 291 percent increase over just four years ago (DOL, WIA system quarterly report ending March 31, 2008). These most recent reporting data does not include an additional 786,000 job seekers using targeted WIA programming to help special populations with additional barriers to employment...”

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter.

Full statement can be found here http://democrats.ed...WIAStakeholders.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-803-oppose
S.J.Res. 10: The Equal Rights Amendment

“Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Simple Justice – Long Overdue

The Equal Rights Amendment is not yet in the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA, affirming the equal application of the Constitution to all persons regardless of their sex, was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. After women’s right to vote was guaranteed by the 19th Amendment in 1920, she proposed the ERA as the next step in confirming "equal justice under law" for all citizens.

The ERA was introduced into every Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution.

The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since 1982. Beginning in 1994 with introduction of the first three-state strategy bill in Congress, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:

• the traditional process outlined in Article V of the Constitution, requiring passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states, and

• ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA during the 1972-82 ratification campaign, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this non-traditional process could withstand legal challenge and put the ERA into the Constitution.”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the following website: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-sjres-10-support
H.R. 961: United States Postal Service Stabilization Act of 2013

“...Each year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) calculates the surplus and/or liability of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension fund. It specifically addresses the postal portion of the fund and determines the financial situation of that portion.

OPM estimated in 2011 that the U.S. Postal Service portion of FERS had a $2.6 billion surplus and projected that it would grow to $3 billion by 2012. While this is certainly good news, the assumptions that OPM uses when making this calculation are deeply flawed.

Since Postal Service employees are demographically different from the rest of the federal government, hold unique positions within the federal government and are not paid on the government pay scale, OPM should be required to use postal-specific assumptions when calculating the postal portion of the FERS pension fund.

The result of using the wrong assumptions has led to overstating the USPS’s pension obligations and has thus significantly reduced pension surpluses. As a matter of fact, if the OPM used postal-specific calculations, the size of the surplus could be as much as $12.4 billion.

H.R. 961 would require OPM to recalculate the postal surplus in the FERS pension fund using postal-specific salary and demographic assumptions. The legislation would then require that any returned surplus funds be used by the Postal Service in making any outstanding payment obligations...”

The previous summary is an excerpt from a fact sheet written by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) found here: http://www.nalc.org...f/2013/HR%20961.pdf

For more information please visit: http://www.nalc.org/

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-961-support
S. 47: VAWA Reauthorization (House proposed substitute)

2/27/13: The House Republican Leadership’s bill puts a barrier to the protection of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Conversely, the Senate version of VAWA, which was adopted with strong bipartisan support (78-22), addresses gaps in current service programs that left Native American women, college students, LGBT individuals, and other vulnerable groups without vital protections.

Today, House Republican Leadership will offer a substitute to the bipartisan Senate version of VAWA (S. 47), eliminating these important provisions and weakening the Office of Violence Against Women. These omissions deny critical services to many victims and reinforce the perception of the Republican Party as hostile to the needs of women, college students, LGBT persons, and communities of color. The House substitute:

- Limits the authority S. 47 provides to tribal authorities to prosecute non-tribal members who commit domestic violence or sexual assault crimes on tribal land. This makes it more difficult for Native American women to hold their abusers accountable. Native Americans are disproportionately affected by dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

- Eliminates provisions of the Senate bill that would require colleges and universities to keep students safe and informed about policies on sexual assault and enhance programs that help to prevent and combat sexual violence on college campuses.

- Drops the anti-discrimination provisions from S. 47, which were designed to ensure that LGBT victims receive the services they need regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Studies have shown that LGBT individuals are victims of domestic and sexual violence at equal or greater levels than the rest of the population.

Even in today’s polarized political climate, we should at least be able to agree that when we send our daughters and sons to college, they should be protected from stalking, date rape and sexual assault; that one-third of tribal women who have been the victims of rape or domestic abuse should have equal access to justice no matter who the perpetrator is; and, that domestic violence is still violence regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.

It is critical that Representatives reject the exclusionary substitute bill and support passage of the bipartisan Senate bill.

(Letter provided to POPVOX by Congressional office.)

(This bill represents legislative language that has been superseded.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-47-oppose
H.R. 630: The Postal Service Protection Act

“The Postal Service Protection Act, as embodied by the bills, is intended to address key issues that adequate postal legislation cannot do without.

If enacted, the Postal Service Protection Act would grant USPS immediate legislative relief from its current financial crisis by

• Ending the aggressive and unsustainable pre-funding mandate that requires the agency to make 75 years of retiree healthcare benefit payments over a 10 year period – a burden no other government agency or private company is forced to bear.

• Allowing the Postal Service to recover over-payments made to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).

• Re-establishing overnight delivery standards for first-class mail, which would ensure timely delivery schedules and help keep mail processing facilities open

• Protecting six-day delivery.

• Permitting USPS to develop innovative products and services that would generate new sources of revenue, such as issuing licenses, ending the prohibition on beer and wine shipments and providing notary services.

• Ensuring security for rural post offices by giving the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) binding authority to prevent post offices from being closed based on the effect such closures would have on the community and employees.

Representatives and Senators are urged to support the Postal Service Protection Act which seeks to alleviate USPS from the massive pre-funding mandate which is driving the agency into insolvency; stop cuts to service and closures, and restore the Postal Service’s ability to remain a viable and competitive institution...”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the American Postal Workers Union fact sheet which can be found here: http://apwu.org/iss...-factsheet-2013.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-630-support
S. 316: Postal Service Protection Act of 2013

“The Postal Service Protection Act, as embodied by the bills, is intended to address key issues that adequate postal legislation cannot do without.

If enacted, the Postal Service Protection Act would grant USPS immediate legislative relief from its current financial crisis by

• Ending the aggressive and unsustainable pre-funding mandate that requires the agency to make 75 years of retiree healthcare benefit payments over a 10 year period – a burden no other government agency or private company is forced to bear.

• Allowing the Postal Service to recover over-payments made to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).

• Re-establishing overnight delivery standards for first-class mail, which would ensure timely delivery schedules and help keep mail processing facilities open

• Protecting six-day delivery.

• Permitting USPS to develop innovative products and services that would generate new sources of revenue, such as issuing licenses, ending the prohibition on beer and wine shipments and providing notary services.

• Ensuring security for rural post offices by giving the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) binding authority to prevent post offices from being closed based on the effect such closures would have on the community and employees.

Representatives and Senators are urged to support the Postal Service Protection Act which seeks to alleviate USPS from the massive pre-funding mandate which is driving the agency into insolvency; stop cuts to service and closures, and restore the Postal Service’s ability to remain a viable and competitive institution...”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the American Postal Workers Union fact sheet which can be found here: http://apwu.org/iss...-factsheet-2013.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-316-support
H.R. 676: The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

The Coalition of Labor Union Women has been on record in support of HR 676, Congressman John Conyers’ single payer health care legislation, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, since the CLUW Convention of October of 2003.

Workers, their families and their unions are still waging an increasingly difficult struggle to win or to keep good health care coverage. Almost every union at every contract deadline must battle and sacrifice merely to sustain health care benefits. The rising costs of health insurance are blocking workers’ progress in wages and other areas.

More employers are forcing high deductible plans onto workers, resulting, according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, in a $1,000 annual pay cut for women due to the higher average health expenditures of women.’ All of our unions and our nation face a healthcare crisis. About 50 million people in the U. S. are currently without health insurance and the high cost of premiums, deductibles, and co-pays force even the insured to go without needed care. Despite the advances of the civil rights era, African Americans suffer an annual 83,000 deaths in excess of what would be expected were there equality. Unorganized workers have either no or inadequate coverage.

http://www.cluw.org...olutions%202011.pdf (see pages 1-2)

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-676-support
H.Res. 30: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation ...

“...The proposed reduction in delivery services would be the most radical change to postal operations in the 230-plus year history of the U.S. Mail. No such policy decision should be made without understanding its effects. Such a study needs to include impacts on the cost of package delivery and service to rural communities,senior communities, those with limited internet access, and magazine and newspapers who depend on Saturday delivery. The postal network is unmatched and to begin dismantling it for what will likely be little or no savings is counterproductive to the mission that Congress should have to ensure a strong and viable Postal Service for the future generations...”

“...According to market research conducted by the Postal Service, a third of mailers (MTAC survey) and a third of American businesses (Maritz survey) oppose the elimination of Saturday delivery or value its continuation. That means millions of American businesses oppose this change. Given that business mailers generate more than 90% of total mail volume, Congress should not ignore the Postal Service’s own market research. No enterprise, including the USPS, can thrive by ignoring the needs of a third of its customers..."

“...Delayed delivery of payments, subscriptions and food products would adversely affect millions of households. The PRC’s advisory opinion noted that the elimination of Saturday delivery would have an especially adverse effect on millions o elderly Americans who rely on the Postal Service as their principle means of communication and bill-paying. It also pointed out the millions of Americans in rural areas of the country would be inconvenienced the most by the loss of six-day delivery since such Americans typically rely on the Postal Service the most...”

The previous are excerpts from a fact sheet composed by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) which can be found here: http://www.nalc.org...-day%20delivery.pdf

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hres-30-support
H.R. 438: Fair Pay Act of 2013

“…The Fair Pay Act would address the more systematic forms of discrimination and the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called “women’s” work. Millions of women have jobs—for example, social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses—that are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to jobs that are usually held by men. However, the jobs that are predominantly held by women pay significantly less. …”

“…The Fair Pay Act would:

• Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, race or national origin;

• Require employers to provide equal pay for jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions;

• Prohibit companies from reducing other employees’ wages to achieve pay equity;

• Require public disclosure of employer job categories and pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees; and

• Allow payment of different wages under a seniority system, merit system, or system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production…”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the following website: http://www.help.sen...a-b628-380acfaf6f47

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-438-support
S. 168: Fair Pay Act of 2013

“…The Fair Pay Act would address the more systematic forms of discrimination and the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called “women’s” work. Millions of women have jobs—for example, social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses—that are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to jobs that are usually held by men. However, the jobs that are predominantly held by women pay significantly less. …”

“…The Fair Pay Act would:

• Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, race or national origin;

• Require employers to provide equal pay for jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions;

• Prohibit companies from reducing other employees’ wages to achieve pay equity;

• Require public disclosure of employer job categories and pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees; and

• Allow payment of different wages under a seniority system, merit system, or system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production…”

The previous summary is an excerpt from the following website: http://www.help.sen...a-b628-380acfaf6f47

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-168-support
H.Res. 19: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination ...

"January 3, 2013

To the Honorable Members of the United States Senate:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to urge you to make

ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDAW) a priority for the United States Senate in the 113th

session of Congress.

The record breaking number of women who will serve in the 113th Congress lends

significant momentum for the United States to increase its global leadership role on

women’s rights issues. Twenty female Senators will either return to or take office in

the Senate—a truly historic accomplishment.

CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of

fundamental human rights and equality for women around the world. It is a

practical blueprint for each country to achieve progress for women and girls.

CEDAW is already making a difference for women and girls worldwide, specifically

by strengthening civil society's efforts to persuade governments to respect

women’s human rights and adopt policies to reduce sex trafficking and domestic

violence, provide access to education and vocational training, ensure the right to

vote, end forced and child marriages, secure inheritance rights, and ensure the

right to work and own a business without discrimination.

Ratification of CEDAW would strengthen the United States’ standing as a global

leader in standing up for women and girls. To date, the United States is one of only

seven countries that have not yet ratified CEDAW. It is essential that the U.S. ratify

CEDAW and continue to play a leadership role in advancing women’s and girls’

rights globally.

The signatories of this letter call on the U.S. Senate to advance women’s human

rights, not just for women in the United States but for all women worldwide, by

ratifying this convention now."

The previous summary is an excerpt from a multi organization letter.

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hres-19-support
Sequestration

Dear Members of Congress:

The undersigned organizations represent millions of Americans with a tremendous stake in the outcome of the ongoing budget process. As Congress debates the debt ceiling, automatic spending cuts and spending in 2013 and going forward, our organizations urge you to ensure adequate funding to preserve the basic functions of government and real security for all our people.

There are two paths toward accomplishing this goal and both must be followed. First, additional new revenues must be enacted. President Obama has identified at least $600 billion in new revenues if the wealthiest Americans are required to pay their fair share. We can raise more than $600 billion by closing tax loopholes for corporations, for the wealthiest 2 percent and for companies that outsource jobs overseas.

Second and just as important: we must rein in wasteful Pentagon spending. We believe Pentagon spending should be cut by a minimum of $500 billion to $550 billion over 10 years – similar to the automatic cuts to the Pentagon that go into effect beginning in March if Congress does not act (the “sequester”). We note that many military experts say cuts could be as high as $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over the next decade without compromising national security.

Pentagon spending, which comprises more than half of the current discretionary budget, continues to absorb the lion’s share of the money Congress appropriates. Without more cuts to Pentagon spending, even very deep cuts to all other discretionary funding taken together will fall far short of alleviating deficit spending and the rising debt.

We view reining in wasteful Pentagon spending as a mandate. We must stop paying for the things we don’t need so that we can afford to pay for the things we do need. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the Affordable Care Act. And it includes discretionary domestic programs such as Head Start, nutrition aid, job training, education and cancer screening, just to name a few.

As a community of advocates, we are committed to creating good jobs here in America, providing our families with security and building a brighter future for our children. If we invest some of the billions we spend on the Pentagon in other sectors of our economy, we would actually generate MORE jobs, strengthening the middle class and protecting essential services that help our families. Economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that public dollars invested in clean energy, health care, and education all create significantly more jobs within the U.S. economy than investing an equivalent amount in the military.** As we struggle with high unemployment rates across the nation, this is a critical point to consider.

We want a safe and secure nation. The safety of our residents is of utmost importance. Proposals to rein in wasteful Pentagon spending should not threaten that priority. But the Pentagon budget should not be immune from oversight and fiscal responsibility. Like any other department, the Pentagon must be held accountable for its spending and be able to prove that its programs are a responsible and worthwhile use of our limited tax dollars.

We believe budget decisions reflect our values, and we believe that we can responsibly pare down wasteful Pentagon spending without compromising our nation's security. We can shift from spending on outdated, unnecessary weapons to investments in projects that keep us secure and help us prosper- first responders, teachers, bridges, roads, and rails. As you face some of the most difficult budgeting challenges in our nation's history, we urge you to consider all the paths we must embark upon in order to achieve responsible investments at home.

**The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: An Updated Analysis, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Department of Economics (December 2011)

(Letter provided to POPVOX by CHN, 2/12/13)

Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-x-105-oppose
H.R. 6169 (112th): The Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act

August 1, 2012

Dear Representative:

As 132 national organizations concerned with our economy, jobs, protecting critical services for the middle class and the most vulnerable, and meeting our fiscal challenges, we are writing to urge you to ensure that the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush that benefit the richest 2 percent of Americans be allowed to expire on schedule at the end of this year. It is time to begin to restore some basic fairness to our tax system.

Ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans, households with incomes over $250,000, is simply asking them to pay their fair share. Setting the threshold at $250,000, means that 98 percent of Americans would receive their full tax cuts next year, and all Americans would receive a tax cut on their first $250,000 in income.

This week the House will consider two bills addressing the Bush era tax cuts. H.R. 15 will end the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. It is identical to legislation (S. 3412) sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, which passed the U.S. Senate last week; it will begin to restore tax fairness. H.R. 8, introduced by Rep. Dave Camp, goes in the opposite direction. Moreover, H.R. 8, like its Senate counterpart sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (S. 3417), would fail to extend refundable credit improvements that benefit 25 million mostly middle- and lower-income families, resulting in a tax increase averaging $1,000, according to a U.S. Treasury Department analysis. The tax credits affected are the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps make college affordable.

If we continue unaffordable tax breaks for the richest 2 percent, we won’t be able to address critical national priorities demanding attention – such as supporting education, strengthening Medicare, creating jobs, improving our infrastructure, and helping the millions of families struggling to get by. We’ll have to borrow even more money to finance these tax cuts, adding to deficits and making it harder to effectively address our significant long-term fiscal challenges. And tax cuts heavily tilted towards the wealthy have proven to be a failed economic strategy because they create many fewer jobs compared with alternatives. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue to give large tax cuts to those who need them the least.

We also ask that you oppose draconian legislation (H.R. 6169) sponsored by Reps. Dave Camp and David Dreier, which would set up an expedited – and harmful – process for Congress to consider tax legislation next year. This process, which would result in ever deeper tax cuts that would benefit the richest Americans and the most profitable corporations, would require that any tax overhaul legislation:

- Replace the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 percent and 25 percent (or less);

- Reduce the statutory corporate income tax rate by about 30 percent, dropping from the current 35 percent to 25 percent (or less); and

- Adopt a “territorial” tax system, which would exempt offshore profits of U.S. multinational corporations from U.S. taxes.

Polls show that about two out of three Americans agree that we should end the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans. When these proposals come to a vote, we hope we can count on you to ensure the tax cuts for these wealthy Americans expire at the end of this year and that the draconian Camp-Dreier proposal is rejected.

Thank you for considering our views on this most important matter.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-6169-oppose
H.R. 8 (112th): The Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act

August 1, 2012

Dear Representative:

As 132 national organizations concerned with our economy, jobs, protecting critical services for the middle class and the most vulnerable, and meeting our fiscal challenges, we are writing to urge you to ensure that the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush that benefit the richest 2 percent of Americans be allowed to expire on schedule at the end of this year. It is time to begin to restore some basic fairness to our tax system.

Ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans, households with incomes over $250,000, is simply asking them to pay their fair share. Setting the threshold at $250,000, means that 98 percent of Americans would receive their full tax cuts next year, and all Americans would receive a tax cut on their first $250,000 in income.

This week the House will consider two bills addressing the Bush era tax cuts. H.R. 15 will end the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. It is identical to legislation (S. 3412) sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, which passed the U.S. Senate last week; it will begin to restore tax fairness. H.R. 8, introduced by Rep. Dave Camp, goes in the opposite direction. Moreover, H.R. 8, like its Senate counterpart sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (S. 3417), would fail to extend refundable credit improvements that benefit 25 million mostly middle- and lower-income families, resulting in a tax increase averaging $1,000, according to a U.S. Treasury Department analysis. The tax credits affected are the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps make college affordable.

If we continue unaffordable tax breaks for the richest 2 percent, we won’t be able to address critical national priorities demanding attention – such as supporting education, strengthening Medicare, creating jobs, improving our infrastructure, and helping the millions of families struggling to get by. We’ll have to borrow even more money to finance these tax cuts, adding to deficits and making it harder to effectively address our significant long-term fiscal challenges. And tax cuts heavily tilted towards the wealthy have proven to be a failed economic strategy because they create many fewer jobs compared with alternatives. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue to give large tax cuts to those who need them the least.

We also ask that you oppose draconian legislation (H.R. 6169) sponsored by Reps. Dave Camp and David Dreier, which would set up an expedited – and harmful – process for Congress to consider tax legislation next year. This process, which would result in ever deeper tax cuts that would benefit the richest Americans and the most profitable corporations, would require that any tax overhaul legislation:

- Replace the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 percent and 25 percent (or less);

- Reduce the statutory corporate income tax rate by about 30 percent, dropping from the current 35 percent to 25 percent (or less); and

- Adopt a “territorial” tax system, which would exempt offshore profits of U.S. multinational corporations from U.S. taxes.

Polls show that about two out of three Americans agree that we should end the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans. When these proposals come to a vote, we hope we can count on you to ensure the tax cuts for these wealthy Americans expire at the end of this year and that the draconian Camp-Dreier proposal is rejected.

Thank you for considering our views on this most important matter.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-8-oppose
H.R. 3897 (112th): The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-3897-oppose
S. 2043 (112th): The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Anti-contraception forces are up in arms over the president’s no-cost birth-control policy, and have launched a multi-million dollar campaign to overturn it.

The attacks have escalated all the way to the U.S. Senate, where there is a new bill that takes the Obama administration’s policy head on. It is designed to take away birth-control coverage from women who work as nurses, custodians, professors, and administrative staff at colleges and hospitals that oppose birth control.

Ninety-nine percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives. Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control at no cost to women is not just common sense, it’s critical to protecting women’s health.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-2043-oppose
S. 1925 (112th): VAWA reauthorization

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs support state and local efforts to address the pervasive and insidious crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. These programs have made great progress towards keeping victims safe and holding perpetrators accountable. This critical legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a continued response to these crimes.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-1925-support
S. 1843: Representation Fairness Restoration Act

This bill will undo the NLRB's Decision to allow smaller groups of employees to organize.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-1843-oppose
H.J.Res. 2 (112th): Balanced Budget Amendment

A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the nation’s urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hjres-2-oppose
S. 797: Paycheck Fairness Act

The 2011 Supreme Court ruling in the Wal-Mart vs. Duke gender discrimination case blocked the biggest potential class-action lawsuit in history, prohibiting 1.5 million women from filing suit together in gender discrimination charges against Wal-Mart. The devastating ruling highlights the importance of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was reintroduced this year by Senator Barbara Mikulski and Representative Rosa DeLauro. Congress took an important step in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This vital law reverses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, and helps to ensure that individuals subject to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, critical as it is, is just one of the many tools needed to address unfair wage disparities.

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it will provide effective protections against sex-based pay discrimination. Toward that end, the comprehensive bill bars retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss their wages. It allows women to receive the same remedies for sex based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and ethnicity.

The Coalition of Labor Union Women will vigorously support the prompt passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act (S.797/H.R. 1519) which will:

• Allow employees to disclose salary information to co-workers despite workplace rules;

• Allow class action lawsuits to be filed and provide for compensatory and punitive

damages;

• Call for a study of data collected by the EEOC and propose voluntary guidelines to

show employers how to evaluate jobs.

http://www.cluw.org...0No%20Pay%20Gap.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-797-support
H.R. 1519: Paycheck Fairness Act

The 2011 Supreme Court ruling in the Wal-Mart vs. Duke gender discrimination case blocked the biggest potential class-action lawsuit in history, prohibiting 1.5 million women from filing suit together in gender discrimination charges against Wal-Mart. The devastating ruling highlights the importance of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was reintroduced this year by Senator Barbara Mikulski and Representative Rosa DeLauro. Congress took an important step in passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This vital law reverses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, and helps to ensure that individuals subject to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, critical as it is, is just one of the many tools needed to address unfair wage disparities.

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it will provide effective protections against sex-based pay discrimination. Toward that end, the comprehensive bill bars retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss their wages. It allows women to receive the same remedies for sex based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and ethnicity.

The Coalition of Labor Union Women will vigorously support the prompt passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act (S.797/H.R. 1519) which will:

• Allow employees to disclose salary information to co-workers despite workplace rules;

• Allow class action lawsuits to be filed and provide for compensatory and punitive

damages;

• Call for a study of data collected by the EEOC and propose voluntary guidelines to

show employers how to evaluate jobs.

http://www.cluw.org...0No%20Pay%20Gap.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1519-support
H.R. 676: Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

The Coalition of Labor Union Women has been on record in support of HR 676, Congressman John Conyers’ single payer health care legislation, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, since the CLUW Convention of October of 2003.

Workers, their families and their unions are still waging an increasingly difficult struggle to win or to keep good health care coverage. Almost every union at every contract deadline must battle and sacrifice merely to sustain health care benefits. The rising costs of health insurance are blocking workers’ progress in wages and other areas.

More employers are forcing high deductible plans onto workers, resulting, according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, in a $1,000 annual pay cut for women due to the higher average health expenditures of women.’ All of our unions and our nation face a healthcare crisis. About 50 million people in the U. S. are currently without health insurance and the high cost of premiums, deductibles, and co-pays force even the insured to go without needed care. Despite the advances of the civil rights era, African Americans suffer an annual 83,000 deaths in excess of what would be expected were there equality. Unorganized workers have either no or inadequate coverage.

http://www.cluw.org...are%20for%20All.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-676-support
H.R. 1397 (112th): Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or gender identity or

gender expression. But people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) face widespread discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of LGBT people experience some form of discrimination and harassment on the job.

Additional issues that LGBT workers face include:

• denied access to health benefits, pension and other benefits for their same-sex

partners;

• denied access to family and bereavement leave;

• denied access to needed health coverage.

Workplace education can help workers value the contribution of LGBT co-workers and remove any misconceptions held about those colleagues’ differences. Such education can promote understanding of the needs of LGBT workers, such as beneficiary benefits for domestic partners, FMLA, inclusive sick leave and bereavement leave, non-discrimination and antiharassment clauses, and transgender inclusive health care benefits.

Currently, not only can persons be denied employment due to sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but they can be fired if it is discovered while employed, thus swelling the rolls of the unemployed seeking assistance.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would protect those who have jobs or are applying for jobs against unfair, unreasonable, and irrational discrimination in the workplace. Fighting to advance protections for a discriminated minority is one of the roles of labor unions.

http://www.cluw.org...d%20Legislation.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1397-support
S. 811 (112th): The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Employees should be judged on performance, not sexual orientation or gender identity or

gender expression. But people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) face widespread discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of LGBT people experience some form of discrimination and harassment on the job.

Additional issues that LGBT workers face include:

• denied access to health benefits, pension and other benefits for their same-sex

partners;

• denied access to family and bereavement leave;

• denied access to needed health coverage.

Workplace education can help workers value the contribution of LGBT co-workers and remove any misconceptions held about those colleagues’ differences. Such education can promote understanding of the needs of LGBT workers, such as beneficiary benefits for domestic partners, FMLA, inclusive sick leave and bereavement leave, non-discrimination and antiharassment clauses, and transgender inclusive health care benefits.

Currently, not only can persons be denied employment due to sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, but they can be fired if it is discovered while employed, thus swelling the rolls of the unemployed seeking assistance.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would protect those who have jobs or are applying for jobs against unfair, unreasonable, and irrational discrimination in the workplace. Fighting to advance protections for a discriminated minority is one of the roles of labor unions.

http://www.cluw.org...d%20Legislation.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-811-support
H.R. 1351: United States Postal Service Pension Obligation Recalculation and Restoration Act of 2011

The United States Postal Service is not funded by taxpayers’ dollars. Not only are workers’ jobs, pay, and benefits at jeopardy, but there is also the added risk of the public losing its mailing service through the USPS as we know it today.

No national company would choose to make pre-funding retiree health its highest corporate priority in today’s economy, and no company would use all of its borrowing capacity to do so.

But that is precisely what the Postal Service is being forced to do. Its $15 billion debt limit was established in 1970 to allow the Postal Service to invest in new retail mail processing facilities and keep its huge fleet up to date. In 2005 the Postal Service did not even have to use its borrowing authority — it had no outstanding debt. Virtually all of this debt has gone to pre-fund retiree health benefits.

Only about one third of the Fortune 1000 list of largest companies voluntarily pre-fund retiree health according to an annual survey done by Towers Watson, a leading accounting and 23 actuarial service company. Of those that do, the Postal Service level of pre-funding is 48 percent which is far greater than the median level of 31 percent.

The U.S. Postal Service Obligation Recalculation and Restoration Act of 2011 (HR1351) has been introduced to allow the USPS to use pension overpayments to meet its financial obligations and keep its doors open.

http://www.cluw.org...Resolutions2011.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1351-support
S. 984 (112th): The Healthy Families Act

Nearly four in ten private-sector workers — and 81% of the lowest-wage workers — do not have paid sick days to care for their own health. That is forty million workers with no access to paid sick days at all and another 4.2 million haven’t been on the job long enough to be eligible for paid sick days.

The absence of paid sick time has forced Americans to make untenable choices between needed income and jobs on the one hand and caring for their own and their family’s health on the other.

Workers face job loss and workplace discipline for taking sick time. Nearly one quarter of workers (23%) say they have lost a job or were told they would lose a job for taking time off to deal with a personal or family illness, including nearly one-sixth (16%) who say they have actually lost a job. Nearly one-sixth (16%) also say they or a family member were fired, suspended, written up or otherwise penalized or were told they would face such penalties for illness related absences.

Providing paid sick time improves public health by reducing infectious disease. Adults without paid sick days are 1.5 times more likely than adults with paid sick days to report going to work with a contagious illness like the flu or a viral infection — and risk infecting others. For example, more than three in four food service and hotel workers (78%) don’t have a single paid sick day — and workers in child care centers and nursing homes overwhelmingly lack paid sick days.

http://www.cluw.org...0Family%20Leave.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-984-support
H.R. 1876 (112th): The Healthy Families Act

Nearly four in ten private-sector workers — and 81% of the lowest-wage workers — do not have paid sick days to care for their own health. That is forty million workers with no access to paid sick days at all and another 4.2 million haven’t been on the job long enough to be eligible for paid sick days.

The absence of paid sick time has forced Americans to make untenable choices between needed income and jobs on the one hand and caring for their own and their family’s health on the other. Workers face job loss and workplace discipline for taking sick time. Nearly one quarter of workers (23%) say they have lost a job or were told they would lose a job for taking time off to deal with a personal or family illness, including nearly one-sixth (16%) who say they have actually lost a job. Nearly one-sixth (16%) also say they or a family member were fired, suspended, written up or otherwise penalized or were told they would face such penalties for illness related absences.

Providing paid sick time improves public health by reducing infectious disease. Adults without paid sick days are 1.5 times more likely than adults with paid sick days to report going to work with a contagious illness like the flu or a viral infection — and risk infecting others. For example, more than three in four food service and hotel workers (78%) don’t have a single paid sick day— and workers in child care centers and nursing homes overwhelmingly lack paid sick days.

http://www.cluw.org...0Family%20Leave.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-1876-support
H.R. 12 (112th): The President's American Jobs Act

The Coalition of Labor Union Women will support efforts by the American Alliance for Manufacturing to keep jobs in the United States and support stringent enforcement of current trade agreements.

CLUW will oppose trade agreements that do not have stringent environmental and labor protections.

CLUW will call on Washington to pass President Obama’s jobs bill and the jobs bills endorsed by the AFL-CIO to;

• create more family-supporting manufacturing jobs;

• hold all countries accountable for unfair trade practices;

• establish a national infrastructure bank for investing in transportation, clean energy

and infrastructure; • make investments to boost skills and training opportunities;

• strengthen domestic procurement preferences so companies increasing domestic

content will be favored;

• make the tax code friendlier to domestic production and penalize outsourcers;

• reshape the tax code for job creation and domestic investment;

• ensure that any CEO on federal advisory boards or job councils has created net new

American jobs over the past five years or is expanding the company’s domestic workforce at a faster rate than its foreign workforce.

http://www.cluw.org...%20in%20America.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-hr-12-support
S. 1549 (112th): The President's American Jobs Act

The Coalition of Labor Union Women will support efforts by the American Alliance for Manufacturing to keep jobs in the United States and support stringent enforcement of current trade agreements.

CLUW will oppose trade agreements that do not have stringent environmental and labor protections.

CLUW will call on Washington to pass President Obama’s jobs bill and the jobs bills endorsed by the AFL-CIO to;

• create more family-supporting manufacturing jobs;

• hold all countries accountable for unfair trade practices;

• establish a national infrastructure bank for investing in transportation, clean energy

and infrastructure; • make investments to boost skills and training opportunities;

• strengthen domestic procurement preferences so companies increasing domestic

content will be favored;

• make the tax code friendlier to domestic production and penalize outsourcers;

• reshape the tax code for job creation and domestic investment;

• ensure that any CEO on federal advisory boards or job councils has created net new

American jobs over the past five years or is expanding the company’s domestic workforce at a faster rate than its foreign workforce.

http://www.cluw.org...%20in%20America.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/cluw#cluw-s-1549-support