E-Verify: Tempest In A Teapot?

The ongoing litigation over Homeland Security rules requiring all contractors on federal government projects to submit existing employees as well as new hires to E-Verify may be just a tempest in a teapot if Congress does not reauthorize the E-Verify program, which is set to expire at the end of this month. Some argue that Homeland Security could continue requiring participation in the E-Verify program by rule, even without Congressional authorization, but since the program was initiated by an act of Congress, the prudent thing to do would be for both houses to pass bills reauthorizing the program. Surely President Obama would sign reauthorization legislation.

The House included E-Verify reauthorization in its 2010 DHS appropriations bill, but the Senate may not act on that package before the end of the month. The Senate, in a separate bill, permanently reauthorized the program, and included a requirement that all federal contractors and subcontractors participate. In order to assure continuation of E-Verify, a conference committee must reconcile these different measures so both houses can pass identical measures before the end of the month and get a bill to the Oval Office. If health care reform and climate change burn up the September agenda in either the House or the Senate, E-Verify may just become a lawyers' nightmare in the Department of Homeland Security.

"Card Check" Under Attack

The Labor Policy Institute, lobbying arm of the National Association of Manufacturers, is launching an advertising and direct mail campaign in Arkansas and Colorado attacking the Employee Free Choice Act, colloquially known as the "card check" bill, because Colorado Democrat Michael Bennett and Arkansas Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln are seen as the key votes which could kill the bill. NAM Executive Vice President Jay Timmons described the reasons behind the campaign: "This bill is one of the greatest threats to manufacturers' economic competitiveness. We want to remind manufacturers and the public that this bill would destroy jobs. The EFCA would send our economy and our nation in the wrong direction."

Apparently the AFL-CIO is a little bit worried about the same sort of problem, since the expected incoming president has been quoted as saying the unions could live with a bill preserving employers' rights to continue insisting on secret ballot elections before collective bargaining becomes at their plants.

"Card Check" Bill May Need A Name Change

Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO, expected to elected president of the lab or organization later this month, and a former president of the United Mine Workers, has his finger in the dike holding together this legislative initiative, but even he can see the dike is cracking. Asked yesterday whether the AFL-CIO could accept a labor law reform measure preserving management's right to insist on a secret ballot vote before a company is unionized, he said the "card check" provision of the pending measure "may or may not be" a key to union support for the final bill. Trumka said the AFL-CIO sees three provisions of the reform bill as "must haves" for organized labor: freedom of union organizers from management harassment; stiffened penalties for management violations, and tighter deadlines for concluding union contract negotiations.

The question now is whether anyone in either house of Congress is listening to him.

Obama Health Care Speeches To Light Congressional Fuse

President Obama will give two important speeches on health care reform next week. The first, on Monday at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati, before the obviously receptive audience, will be a friendly warm up for Wednesday evening's prime time address to a joint session of Congress in the Capitol in Washington, D.C. President Obama will highlight two "must haves" he considers essential in any health reform package: federal regulation of insurance companies prohibiting coverage denials or premium increases due to a person's current health or pre-existing conditions, and federal government subsidies to make health insurance affordable for low income Americans. He will also name as "give-aways" three non-essential and particularly controversial proposals of pending bills, including Medicare payment for end of life counseling, school based health clinics, and a national health care database organized by race, sex, sexual orientation and "gender identity."

Thus far, no one but the presidential speech writers seems to know whether three equally debated provisions of the various bills will be on the "must have" or the "give away" list: a federal option to compete with insurance companies, a mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage, and a mandate for everyone to buy health insurance.

Tune in to your favorite news channel Wednesday night. Until President Obama delivers his message to Congress, we don't really know anything about what the final health care reform measure will look like.

Construction Coalition Seeks Injunction Against E-verify Requirements

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the Society for Human Resource Management today filed court papers seeking an injunction against enforcement of the Homeland Security Department's rule requiring all federal government contractors to check the legal status of both current workers and new hires in order to be eligible to work on federal construction projects, as well as state and local projects paid for with federal money. Last week the court rejected the coalition lawsuit challenging the rule, and now the contractor associations want to prohibit enforcement of the new requirement while they appeal that ruling. Some contractors fear that they will be responsible for violations of the rule by their subcontractors and suppliers under Homeland Security interpretations.

What If Chicago Gets The Olympics?

Chicago proposes to host the 2016 Olympic Games July 22 through August 7, 2016. Today the 2016 IOC Evaluation Commission released its comparative report on the bids by Chicago, Tokyo, Rio de Janero and Madrid to host the 2016 Olympics. According to that report, there is a financial bonanza for the local economy if Chicago is selected as host city.

The Games would bring 16,800 athletes from around the world to the heart of our city, where they would live in a newly built Olympic Village on the site of Michael Reese Hospital in Bronzeville. At that location 90% of the athletes would be living within a 15 minute bus ride of their competition venues. After the games the Village would be owned by the private developer winning the construction bid, and the developer would have to promise 20% of the units as affordable housing for Chicago residents.

The evaluation report characterizes the proposed Games budget as "ambitious but achievable," supported by City of Chicago financial guarantees of $500 million and State of Illinois guarantees of another $250 million. The City of Chicago has already arranged an insurance policy covering its guarantee, so the city taxpayers will be protected from any losses. Olympic events will sell 8.9 million tickets to sports fans from across town and around the world, with more than half the tickets costing under $50, and an average ticket price of $71.

The Games would bring a direct total of $5.36 billion in cash to the Chicago area economy, including $1.8 billion from local sponsors, $1.03 billion for construction of the Olympic Village, $876 million in ticket sales, $675 million from IOC, $355 million from international sponsors, $246 million from donations, $226 million in bus and train fares, and $152 million in sales of Olympic merchandise. For the construction industry, in addition to the $1.03 billion Olympic Village project, on land already owned by the City of Chicago, construction of new Olympic venues would bring another $162.2 million.

One in four odds on getting over five billion dollars seven years from now sounds pretty good to me!

Unemployment Benefit Cash Unclaimed By 23 States

Despite the determination of Congress and the Obama administration to quickly pump billions into America's moribund economy, including extended assistance for the millions who have been rendered jobless by the recession, local politics has once again stifled the flow of federal cash into the economies of 23 states where governors and legislatures are refusing to change their unemployment compensation systems so that they qualify to receive the federal cash. A total of $3.1 billion sits in the Treasury vaults in Washington, D.C., when it should be going out to 350,000 needy jobless families who could be using the money to buy food, clothing and back to school purchases for children deprived by parental layoffs.

Dissatisfied that the benefit extension cash is not an unconditional gift to their states, Republicans in 11 states refuse to consider making the legal changes required to qualify for the federal handout. Twelve other states have partially complied with the Congressional requirements, but object to other changes needed to get the cash flowing in their direction. The problem is worst of all in Alabama, Florida, Indiana and Texas, where business taxes will automatically increase when state unemployment benefit funds run out, and local politicians refuse to do what is required to get their share of the Congressional unemployment extension appropriation.

The objections of the states - nearly half of the country - refusing the federal assistance, center around requirements to provide benefits for dependents of the unemployed, benefits for those whose work hours were cut but who were not entirely laid off, benefits for workers in job training programs, or benefits for people who quit work to care for a sick family member or because they fear domestic violence.

The negative results of this local political intransigence is not only denial of extended benefits to people out of work through no fault of their own, but also slowing down economic recovery to the tune of $3.1 billion which would be going directly for consumer purchases rather than into savings accounts, where the people still employed are squirreling away a larger portion of the tax cuts and other stimulus benefits they are receiving as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Seems spending nearly a trillion dollars in a hurry is a much more difficult task than Congress and the Obama administration thought it would be.