Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law. "Today's Workplace" is the the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, Program Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace. Whether you're an advocate trying to stay on top of the latest case developments and workplace trends, or a worker wanting to follow and understand the issues, keep up to date here!
Friday, July 18, 2003
It wasn't quite the WWE, but things got testy in a very partisan way before the House Ways & Means Committee today, as legislative passions became aroused in a manner very atypical of pension reform discussions. While there weren't any fistfights, arrests, or censures, it wasn't for lack of trying, as both Republicans and Democrats did their best to paint the other side guilty of egregious breaches of House protocol. Ultimately, however, the Republicans prevailed, as they often do in the House of Representatives, by passing a pro-business pension reform measure in the Democratic committee members' absence and by evading the censure of Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), Ways and Means Committee Chairman.
The contretemps occurred as follows: Committee members were assembled at 10:00 a.m. on July 18 to take action on a pension reform measure (known as a "markup"). During the committee hearing, Democrats learned that the pension bill had been rewritten in the middle of the night, giving the minority party no opportunity to review the proposed legislation. The Committee's senior Democrat, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, objected to the consideration of the bill, yet Chairman Thomas continued to proceed with the markup. Agreeing that it was time for some civil disobedience, committee Democrats left the hearing room to take refuge in an adjacent library, leaving behind only one Democratic member, Rep. Pete Stark, (D-CA) to engage in procedural maneuvers designed to delay consideration of the bill. Rep. Stark asked for a reading of the 91-page bill, which Chairman Thomas indulged only briefly before trying to gavel it to a close, giving Rep. Stark no further opportunity to object. (See Washington Post article.) Mr. Stark then grew agitated, prompting Rep. Scott McInnis to mutter, "Shut up." (See New York Times article.)
A transcript reveals what followed:
At some point--no one knows exactly when--Rep. Thomas summoned the Capitol Police to evict the recalcitrant Democrats from the library in which they were ensconced and to protect Rep. McInnis from further verbal abuse. The Capitol Police, after visiting the library and determining that the issue was more one of legislative protocol than national security, declined to take further action. Or, as one commentator put it: "in the only mature decision made that day, decided that they had better things to do than perform playground-monitor duty for a batch of squabbling children. They advised the honorables to settle their hash among themselves, and left." (See Virginian-Pilot article.)
The Republicans, who hold a committee majority, then passed the bill that they had drafted in the Democrat committee members' absence, sending the pro-business pension reform bill to the House floor. What was the substance of the bill that caused such a ruckus? Commentators say that the bill, as written, is a victory for the business community. If passed as is, the bill would allow companies to use a more favorable pension calculation that would save them from having to make tens of billions of dollars in pension contributions over the next three years, according to actuarial studies. (See New York Times article.)
The Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee rejected an administration proposal to overhaul the way pension values are calculated, which Treasury officials said would improve accuracy and ultimately increase the solvency of pension plans. The members also rejected a related administration proposal to make companies disclose more information about the health of their pension plans. The bill that now goes to the House would change pension calculations in a more modest way and would apply for the next three years, although the business community hopes to make this change permanent.
After the bill was passed by the Committee, outraged Democrats attempted to take action on the House floor to censure Chairman Thomas. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took a point of personal privilege on the House floor in an attempt to have Rep. Thomas censured by the House. In Pelosi's remarks on the floor, she said
None of the Republican House members were persuaded by Pelosi's speech, however; the motion to censure Thomas for his actions failed in a vote along party lines. Rep. Stark ultimately apologized for his intemperate words, stating that he had "exchange[d] words that were not becoming of my office. I regret that." And some Republicans are quietly muttering that Chairman Thomas' behavior indicates that he may need to be replaced as committee chairman; however, no action has yet been taken. (See Fox News story.)
Whatever happens with pension reform, it is clear that partisan tensions have reached what might even be an all-time high. As Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (D-CT), a Republican Ways and Means member, said: "It wasn't a day in which the dialogue amongst us was equal to the challenge of governance."
The contretemps occurred as follows: Committee members were assembled at 10:00 a.m. on July 18 to take action on a pension reform measure (known as a "markup"). During the committee hearing, Democrats learned that the pension bill had been rewritten in the middle of the night, giving the minority party no opportunity to review the proposed legislation. The Committee's senior Democrat, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, objected to the consideration of the bill, yet Chairman Thomas continued to proceed with the markup. Agreeing that it was time for some civil disobedience, committee Democrats left the hearing room to take refuge in an adjacent library, leaving behind only one Democratic member, Rep. Pete Stark, (D-CA) to engage in procedural maneuvers designed to delay consideration of the bill. Rep. Stark asked for a reading of the 91-page bill, which Chairman Thomas indulged only briefly before trying to gavel it to a close, giving Rep. Stark no further opportunity to object. (See Washington Post article.) Mr. Stark then grew agitated, prompting Rep. Scott McInnis to mutter, "Shut up." (See New York Times article.)
A transcript reveals what followed:
Mr. Stark: "Oh you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."
Mr. Thomas: "Recess is over. The classroom has been resumed."
At some point--no one knows exactly when--Rep. Thomas summoned the Capitol Police to evict the recalcitrant Democrats from the library in which they were ensconced and to protect Rep. McInnis from further verbal abuse. The Capitol Police, after visiting the library and determining that the issue was more one of legislative protocol than national security, declined to take further action. Or, as one commentator put it: "in the only mature decision made that day, decided that they had better things to do than perform playground-monitor duty for a batch of squabbling children. They advised the honorables to settle their hash among themselves, and left." (See Virginian-Pilot article.)
The Republicans, who hold a committee majority, then passed the bill that they had drafted in the Democrat committee members' absence, sending the pro-business pension reform bill to the House floor. What was the substance of the bill that caused such a ruckus? Commentators say that the bill, as written, is a victory for the business community. If passed as is, the bill would allow companies to use a more favorable pension calculation that would save them from having to make tens of billions of dollars in pension contributions over the next three years, according to actuarial studies. (See New York Times article.)
The Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee rejected an administration proposal to overhaul the way pension values are calculated, which Treasury officials said would improve accuracy and ultimately increase the solvency of pension plans. The members also rejected a related administration proposal to make companies disclose more information about the health of their pension plans. The bill that now goes to the House would change pension calculations in a more modest way and would apply for the next three years, although the business community hopes to make this change permanent.
After the bill was passed by the Committee, outraged Democrats attempted to take action on the House floor to censure Chairman Thomas. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took a point of personal privilege on the House floor in an attempt to have Rep. Thomas censured by the House. In Pelosi's remarks on the floor, she said
It is clear that the Republicans are in denial about their behavior, and it is clear that the Democrats must draw a line in the sand on the repression of our rights in this Congress....What should be a stunning fact to the American people is that the Republicans in the House of Representatives need to be convinced that it is wrong to call the police to evict the Democratic colleagues from their meeting....The Greeks had a word for it -- hubris -- and it was about power, abusive power, arrogance. And it is a tragic flaw. We cannot allow your tragic flaw to shut down the voices of the American people.
None of the Republican House members were persuaded by Pelosi's speech, however; the motion to censure Thomas for his actions failed in a vote along party lines. Rep. Stark ultimately apologized for his intemperate words, stating that he had "exchange[d] words that were not becoming of my office. I regret that." And some Republicans are quietly muttering that Chairman Thomas' behavior indicates that he may need to be replaced as committee chairman; however, no action has yet been taken. (See Fox News story.)
Whatever happens with pension reform, it is clear that partisan tensions have reached what might even be an all-time high. As Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (D-CT), a Republican Ways and Means member, said: "It wasn't a day in which the dialogue amongst us was equal to the challenge of governance."
Thursday, July 17, 2003
You might not have noticed, but the U.S. economic recession is over, it was announced today. Even better news: it ended twenty months ago. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent research group that tracks the business cycle, the recession was over in November 2001. However, as one economist wryly noted, "Most households, most individuals, will really not believe that it is a recovery until we see that job growth as part of the picture." (See New York Times article quoting Lynn Reaser, chief economist of Banc of America Capital Management.)
Yesterday, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a group of seven economists, experts in business cycle dating who have been selected as members of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, met to discuss the U.S. economy and analyze recent economic developments. After analyzing the data available to them, they declared that in the month of November 2001, there was a "trough in business activity," which "marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion." (See NBER Press Release.) It was a recession that ended just as it started in one sense, as the Committee did not declare until November 2001 that the recession had officially started, dating back to March 2001. (See The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001.) The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II, according to the Committee.
The Committee is obviously in no rush to make these pronouncements: it wants to stay above the political and economic fray by ensuring its announcements have as little effect on the current economy as possible, and it also wants to ensure that its pronouncements reflect short-term economic fluctuations. As the current chair of the Committee put it, "We don't take a stand on what's ahead, but this one is in the record books," said Robert Hall, an economics professor at Stanford University who has chaired the committee for more than 20 years. (See CBS Marketwatch article.)
So, you might wonder how the economists can declare that the recession ended two years ago when so many people remain unemployed. (I know I did, anyway.) Just last week, the Labor Department announced that the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits had reached its highest point in more than 20 years, surpassing 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983. (See Reuters article.) And today, the results of a study in Minnesota were released, where it was concluded that the job market in Minnesota is worse right now than it has been at any time since the nation's economic downturn began two years ago. (See Minnesota Public Radio article.) The head of the Minnesota study remarks, "We estimate that there are four job vacancies now for every 10 unemployed people. Two years ago at the beginning of the recession, before the employment declines of the past two years, we had a one-to-one-ratio. There were 10 vacancies for every 10 unemployed workers." Unemployed Minnesotan Ron Corradan, out of work for a year, doesn't need to see the statistics to declare the current job market "arrogant, with employers expecting "God-like" skills at entry-level working conditions.
So how can the economists ignore the plight of unemployed workers when declaring that our economy is expanding rather than contracting? The current explanation is that this is a "jobless recovery." No kidding, but why isn't that an oxymoron? Economists say the economy is expanding due to (and perhaps only due to) the increase in worker productivity. Simply put, fewer workers are working much harder to ensure that businesses are making more money each month.
The Committee used to use as its key monthly indicator of economic strength the payroll employment figure, and designated March 2001 as the beginning of the recession primarily because that was when the number of payroll jobs began to drop, a decline of 2.6 million so far. If the committee were to rely on the same indicator to date the end of the slump, the recession would already have lasted for two years and three months, making it the longest since the vastly more serious downturn that began in 1929 and became the Great Depression. (See Washington Post article.) However, due to the rise in worker productivity -- the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked -- companies have been able to increase production while cutting their workforces. (Of course, it's not like workers have much of a choice these days when it comes to productivity: there's so much more work to do, given the number of layoffs and stagnant hiring, and a worker who doesn't accommodate the increased workload can easily be replaced by an unemployed worker who will.)
I'm no economist, but it's hard to see any good news in this announcement. If the definition of a recession (and the accompanying political will to overcome it) no longer takes into account massive unemployment figures, then employers have little incentive to hire new workers, and will come to take the current level of productivity for granted. If economists and politicians don't work to encourage business growth coming as a result of increased hiring, rather than viewing the current economic state through the harsh lens of a recession status, then what will it take to trigger a decline in unemployment. My prediction (and fervent hope as well) is that the American public (and especially voters) will take their own definition of a recession with them to the polls next year, rather than accepting the Committee's rosy view of our economy. For many of us, the recession is alive and well.
Yesterday, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a group of seven economists, experts in business cycle dating who have been selected as members of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, met to discuss the U.S. economy and analyze recent economic developments. After analyzing the data available to them, they declared that in the month of November 2001, there was a "trough in business activity," which "marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion." (See NBER Press Release.) It was a recession that ended just as it started in one sense, as the Committee did not declare until November 2001 that the recession had officially started, dating back to March 2001. (See The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001.) The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II, according to the Committee.
The Committee is obviously in no rush to make these pronouncements: it wants to stay above the political and economic fray by ensuring its announcements have as little effect on the current economy as possible, and it also wants to ensure that its pronouncements reflect short-term economic fluctuations. As the current chair of the Committee put it, "We don't take a stand on what's ahead, but this one is in the record books," said Robert Hall, an economics professor at Stanford University who has chaired the committee for more than 20 years. (See CBS Marketwatch article.)
So, you might wonder how the economists can declare that the recession ended two years ago when so many people remain unemployed. (I know I did, anyway.) Just last week, the Labor Department announced that the number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits had reached its highest point in more than 20 years, surpassing 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983. (See Reuters article.) And today, the results of a study in Minnesota were released, where it was concluded that the job market in Minnesota is worse right now than it has been at any time since the nation's economic downturn began two years ago. (See Minnesota Public Radio article.) The head of the Minnesota study remarks, "We estimate that there are four job vacancies now for every 10 unemployed people. Two years ago at the beginning of the recession, before the employment declines of the past two years, we had a one-to-one-ratio. There were 10 vacancies for every 10 unemployed workers." Unemployed Minnesotan Ron Corradan, out of work for a year, doesn't need to see the statistics to declare the current job market "arrogant, with employers expecting "God-like" skills at entry-level working conditions.
So how can the economists ignore the plight of unemployed workers when declaring that our economy is expanding rather than contracting? The current explanation is that this is a "jobless recovery." No kidding, but why isn't that an oxymoron? Economists say the economy is expanding due to (and perhaps only due to) the increase in worker productivity. Simply put, fewer workers are working much harder to ensure that businesses are making more money each month.
The Committee used to use as its key monthly indicator of economic strength the payroll employment figure, and designated March 2001 as the beginning of the recession primarily because that was when the number of payroll jobs began to drop, a decline of 2.6 million so far. If the committee were to rely on the same indicator to date the end of the slump, the recession would already have lasted for two years and three months, making it the longest since the vastly more serious downturn that began in 1929 and became the Great Depression. (See Washington Post article.) However, due to the rise in worker productivity -- the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked -- companies have been able to increase production while cutting their workforces. (Of course, it's not like workers have much of a choice these days when it comes to productivity: there's so much more work to do, given the number of layoffs and stagnant hiring, and a worker who doesn't accommodate the increased workload can easily be replaced by an unemployed worker who will.)
I'm no economist, but it's hard to see any good news in this announcement. If the definition of a recession (and the accompanying political will to overcome it) no longer takes into account massive unemployment figures, then employers have little incentive to hire new workers, and will come to take the current level of productivity for granted. If economists and politicians don't work to encourage business growth coming as a result of increased hiring, rather than viewing the current economic state through the harsh lens of a recession status, then what will it take to trigger a decline in unemployment. My prediction (and fervent hope as well) is that the American public (and especially voters) will take their own definition of a recession with them to the polls next year, rather than accepting the Committee's rosy view of our economy. For many of us, the recession is alive and well.
Archive
