How ALEC Is Fueling Efforts To Block Paid Sick Leave And Other Pro-Worker Policies

Our guest blogger is Rachel Curley, an intern at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has been described as a “collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators”, is waging a campaign against workers, especially those in minimum wage jobs with few to no benefits.

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) recently released a report that tracks “the concrete legislative campaign that ALEC has conducted over the past two years to translate economic ideology into law.” Since 2011, 105 bills “aimed to repeal or weaken core wage standards at the local level” have been introduced in 31 state legislatures, and of those 105 bills, 67 were “directly sponsored or co-sponsored by ALEC-affiliated legislators,” according to NELP. Already, eleven of the 67 bills sponsored by ALEC members have been signed into law.

The report released by NELP highlights three types of bills introduced in state legislatures that reflect “model” legislation already written by ALEC. The report focuses on living wage and prevailing wage repeal and preemption bills, but it also points to other bills designed to repeal, suspend, and weaken state minimum wage laws, as well as ones that weaken overtime compensation policies.

The first one of these preemption bills surfaced in Wisconsin in 2011. The bill targeted a 2008 Milwaukee ballot measure passed with 69 percent of the vote that required city businesses to provide paid sick leave to workers. In response, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law directly nullifying the paid sick leave ordinance. Judge Thomas Cooper of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court upheld the state law, noting that the Wisconsin legislature had “put a bull’s eye on paid sick days” and that the state was completely within its right to void the Milwaukee ordinance.

One sponsor of the bill in Wisconsin was state Sen. Glenn Grothman, a confirmed ALEC member. He previously supported Gov. Scott Walker in repealing the state’s equal pay law by claiming that “money is more important to men” and that “to attribute everything to so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

The strategy of ALEC-affiliated legislators, according to NELP, is to repeal current living wage policies or to preempt city and local governments from “establishing a living wage or prevailing wage policy in the first place.” Living wage and prevailing wage policies require employers who receive local government funds to pay their workers according to the cost of living in the area or industry standards for the region.

In Florida, confirmed ALEC member state Rep. Steve Precourt (R) has introduced legislation blocking paid sick leave policies currently under consideration in Orange and Miami-Dade counties. The policy being considered would require local businesses with 15 or more employees to provide leave. What ultimately happens to the local policy won’t matter if the preemptive legislation is passed first.

Other bills designed to preempt paid sick time and local minimum wage rates are working their way through the legislatures in Michigan and Mississippi. Both bills have confirmed ALEC-affiliated sponsors. The paid sick time law passed by the Seattle City Council is also being challenged in the Washington state legislature by Republican lawmakers. Three of the bill’s sponsors — Mike Padden, Barbera Bailey, and Don Benton — are confirmed ALEC members.

Pending a final vote this week by the Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia City Councils on a paid sick leave ordinances, Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. are currently the only cities in the country requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave for their employees (along with the state of Connecticut). The New York City Council will hold a public hearing on the earned sick time bill there on March 22.

ALEC and their allies recognize the momentum building behind these pro-worker bills and are intently pursuing a strategy of preempting local authority from adopting these policies. It’s imperative we draw attention and respond to these fundamentally anti-democratic attempts to revoke the rights of American workers.

View the original article here

Boehner: House will vote again to block 'ObamaCare'

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday that the House will vote again soon to repeal or defund President Obama's healthcare law.

"Well I would expect that sometime in the coming months that we will once again move to get rid of ObamaCare," Boehner said in an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show. "We've had a number of votes in the House in the last two years to end ObamaCare or get rid of it."

The House held 33 votes over the last two years to repeal or defund all or part of the Affordable Care Act, but the repeal push has faded since the Supreme Court upheld the law and President Obama's reelection ensured that repeal votes would be futile.

Boehner had said after the election that "ObamaCare is the law of the land," and the House hasn't picked funding battles over the law so far this year.

Hannity pressed Boehner on his decision not to vote on a defunding proposal as part of the House's continuing resolution, which keeps the government operating through the end of the fiscal year. Conservatives in the Senate demanded a defunding vote on the chamber's CR.

"The government runs out of money on March 27 and our goal is to have the spending fight — whether it's ObamCcare and all the rest— is to have that fight over the sequester," Boehner responded. 

Holding a defunding vote at the wrong time, like during consideration of raising the debt ceiling, could jeopardize the country's credit, Boehner argued. 

"There will be opportunities ahead but do you want risk the full faith and credit of the United States government over ObamaCare? That's a very tough argument to make," Boehner added. "The American people are gong to control this."

House Republicans will have no problem passing legislation defunding the law, Boehner said, even if the Senate is certain not to follow suit.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced an amendment defunding the healthcare law. The Senate amendment failed Wednesday.

"The Senate's never done anything," Boehner said. "I expect the Senate will have a vote during their budget debate on ObamaCare. I don't expect it'll pass. But we're going to continue to help the American people understand just how devastating this law is going to be, both on the budget side and to the fact that they're not going toe able to keep the lean insurance they like, as the president promised them."

View Comments

View the original article here

The 10 NRA-Funded Senators Hoping To Block Gun Regulations

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900

Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550

Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950

Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605

Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600

Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755

Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700

Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750

Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200

Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750

Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.

View the original article here

Florida Business Leaders Vow To Block Paid Sick Day Laws During Worst Flu Season In A Decade

The U.S. is currently experiencing its worst flu season in a decade, but many workers can’t heed the advice of public health experts to stay home when they’re sick due to a lack of paid sick days. And Florida business leaders are looking to keep it that way:

The Florida Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday that one of its top legislative priorities this year would be blocking local governments from adopting paid sick-time measures such as the one pending in Orange County.

At a news conference in Tallahassee, Chamber President Mark Wilson said his powerful business group wants a law that would ban cities and counties from creating varying paid-sick-leave rules across the state.

The passage of local sick-time laws would, Wilson said, “make pockets of Florida very uncompetitive.”

Conservatives have spent a significant amount of effort to block paid sick days laws in Florida and elsewhere in the country. Wisconsin Republicans even went so far as to pass a law preventing any city in the state from passing a paid sick days law after Milwaukee adopted one.

But the complaints from businesses about paid sick days making Florida “uncompetitive” ring hollow. As Jane Farrell and Joanna Ventnor noted, “A study of Connecticut’s policy mandating five days of sick leave found that full use of this leave would cost an employer only 0.4 percent of their sales revenue on average. Without paid sick days, employees come to work unhealthy, costing employers $160 billion per year due to lower productivity levels.”

40 percent of private sector workers, 79 percent of food workers, and 80 percent of low-income workers have no paid sick days. The U.S. is alone in the developed world in not mandating some sort of paid sick leave for workers. And Florida’s business community is doing its best to keep it that way, despite the consequences.

View the original article here

Law Enforcers Block Access To Exonerating DNA Evidence

In yet another case, DNA evidence has suggested the innocence of a man who has spent 11 years and counting in maximum security prison for a serious crime. Joseph Buffey, like some 10 percent of the hundreds of individuals exonerated by DNA testing, pleaded guilty in a rape and robbery case that DNA evidence links to another individual. Buffey was persuaded to take a plea by his lawyer, who said he wrongly assumed Buffey had committed the crime, and thought a defendant as young as 19 would get no more than a 10-year sentence. Buffey was sentenced to 70 years in prison.

But what’s most confounding about Buffey’s case is that it took 18 months of litigation by the nation’s top wrongful conviction lawyers to even secure the DNA testing. From the New York Times:

The Innocence Project lawyers got involved in this case after Mr. Buffey sent them a letter a few years ago. When they ran the test on the victim’s rape kit in the spring of 2011 and it showed that it was not Mr. Buffey’s DNA present at the crime scene, they asked to run the results through the West Virginia database of felons to see if another match existed. The judge approved, but the prosecutor refused, saying that the laboratory that had done the testing was not certified by the state. The judge then said he did not have the authority to order the state to violate its own rules.

The Innocence Project offered to run the test again through a certified lab. But the prosecutor turned down the request, saying there was “no good reason to do so” and adding, “the state does not believe such testing will or can prove the defendant’s innocence after his guilty plea.”

The judge ordered the test to go forward. The state again resisted but a month ago backed down.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of defendants are persuaded to take guilty pleas in a system increasingly designed to incentivize deals over trial. And most defendants don’t have the advantage of leading experts on wrongful conviction to litigate an appeal on their behalf. But even those like Duffey who do face immense obstacles to even access available DNA evidence. In a disheartening 2009 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a defendant who was willing to pay for a DNA test at his own expense was not entitled to the test. Allowing William Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”

The prosecutor in Buffey’s case expressed a similar attitude, saying that even DNA evidence linked to another individual and not Buffey “only tells us that someone else took part.” The victim’s testimony that there was only one attacker casts serious doubt on Romano’s assertion. But whether or not he is right should not have any bearing on a prosecutor’s willingness to provide the defendant, the judge and the jury with definitive, scientific information like DNA evidence.

In a system that study after study has shown is fraught with bias and error, DNA evidence should be a welcome bastion of accuracy. But because it is the government that investigates crimes, the prosecutors are the gatekeepers to evidence that should be equally available to both parties. And while some individual prosecutors are supportive of greater DNA access, law enforcers have an institutional interest in winning their cases. Only nine states have laws granting defense lawyers access to a national DNA database. As National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers President Steven Benjamin said, “Juries expect the defense to be able to prove that if your client didn’t do it, who did? Science doesn’t belong to the government, but they act like it does.”

View the original article here

Supreme Court Rejects Hobby Lobby Attempt To Block Obamacare Contraception Mandate

NEWS FLASH

Supreme Court Rejects Hobby Lobby Attempt To Block Obamacare Contraception Mandate | The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will not block an Obamacare mandate that employers must provide insurance coverage for contraception. Hobby Lobby, a craft chain, was seeking an emergency injunction against the mandate after both a federal and district judge ruled against it. While Hobby Lobby can still pursue its lawsuit that claims the mandate violates religious freedom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled that it could not show that an injunction blocking the mandate from taking effect was “necessary or appropriate.”

By Travis Waldron on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm

View the original article here