Progress Illinois

Back in May, the Tribune cited a study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University which predicted some troubling trends in teen summer employment. Now the Center has analyzed recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data and determined that their unsettling employment forecast has come true. From a press release put out yesterday by the Alternative Schools Network:

- Between 2000 and 2008, the national summer teen employment rate for 16-19 year olds fell from 51.4% to 37.1%, a drop of almost 30% -- a Depression-era reduction in job opportunities for American youth and the lowest youth employment rate in 60 years.

- Only one in every five Black 16-19 year olds worked during June 2008.

- Low-income teens fare worst in the labor market. During summer 2007, only 30% of 16-19 year olds from households with annual incomes below $20,000 worked and only 15% of low-income Black youth held a job, versus an employment rate of 50% for teens in households with annual incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Unfortunately, little has been done to ease the pain at the federal level, where the report's authors say youth joblessness could really be tackled. Bills in both chambers to set up for a summer jobs programs were left out of the 2008 fiscal stimulus package.

You can download the entire report here.

Rep. Phil Hare is all for improving the Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA) by expanding benefits to service-sector workers and those displaced because of trade imbalances with countries like China and India. That's why he's excited the Senate Finance Committee may take up a TAA reform bill tomorrow. He's just not too thrilled that Republican leaders are insisting on pairing the legislation with the proposed Colombian free trade agreement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi tabled indefinitely earlier this year. Here's Hare's response:

Let me be clear. I strongly support modernizing TAA. I voted for the House bill and lobbied for many of the provisions in it. My constituents fully understand the real life consequences when bad trade deals are combined with an inadequate safety net for displaced workers.

But the completely unrelated Colombia FTA should remain dead. Trade unionists are being murdered at a rate of one per week in 2008. Yet few if any of the perpetrators are being brought to justice. America should have zero tolerance for this type of violence.

Passing the Colombia agreement—based on the job-killing NAFTA model—would actually force more Americans into TAA while sending a terrible message about our commitment to basic human rights.

Hare is right to fight the Colombian FTA. As he pointed out in April, 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007 and they're being killed at a rate of over one per week this year. What's more, of 2,500-plus murders in the country since 1986, only 68 cases -- around three percent -- have resulted in convictions. Some trading partner, eh?

Instead of pushing through more lobbyist-ridden legislation, Hare suggests Congress take up the TRADE act, which aims to make American trade deals more just and humane:

What Congress should be moving is the TRADE Act— legislation that mandates a review of existing trade agreements and a renegotiation of those agreements if necessary. It also sets the terms of what must be included in future trade deals—including strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards.

The American people are desperate for a new direction on trade—including a modernized TAA. The Colombia FTA simply continues the failed policies of the past. Tying the two measures together is a bad idea any way you cut it.

Next Thursday, America's federal minimum wage will jump 70 cents to a total of $6.85 per hour. This boost is encouraging, especially after the wage remained at $5.15 for over nine years before the Democratic Congress initiated a raise in late 2006. But it's still well below what many consider a living wage.

According to the Living Wage Calculator, a Chicago adult working full-time as the sole provider of one child would need to earn $12.51 per hour to care for the family adequately. And two new reports released this week by the Government Accountability Office show that many minimum-wage earners have difficulty even obtaining all they are owed:

The Government Accountability Office sharply criticizes the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department in two reports to be issued on Tuesday, saying it mishandled many overtime and minimum-wage complaints and delayed investigating hundreds of cases for a year or more.

The G.A.O. also criticizes the division for greatly reducing the number of enforcement actions it takes each year and for not focusing on the low-wage industries where, one report said, it is most likely to find violations. [...]

The G.A.O., which will release its reports at a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee, also faulted the wage division for reducing the number of enforcement actions it pursues each year to 29,584 in the 2007 fiscal year, down 37 percent from 46,758 10 years earlier.

The House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the problem of wage theft. Testifying was Kim Bobo, the executive director of Chicago's Interfaith Worker Justice, an organization that mobilizes religious communities to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions for low-wage workers. Bobo, whose book on wage theft is set to be published this fall, says two million workers are paid less than the minimum wage, three million are mis-classified as independent contractors instead of employees, and millions more are illegally denied overtime pay. You can watch her testimony here.

(H/T TPMCafe)

To their credit, the Daily Herald editorial board freely admits the hyperbolic nature of their piece today on paid family leave. But this is just silly:

There's a bubbling economic divide that threatens to erupt one of these days, and if it does, we dare say it won't be prompted so much by the gulf between rich and poor. Rather, it will be sparked by the growing distance between the public and private sectors. There are countless examples of the rising entitlement of government employees.

Yes, why worry about the extreme levels of income inequality -- spurred by regressive tax cuts and the gutting of our collective safety net -- which haven't been this bad since before the first World War? Let's focus our ire at those blasted public employees that are draining the economy!

What sparked the Herald's anger towards those government-suckling workers? The U.S. House's passage last week (largely along party lines) of the Democrat-sponsored Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 5781), which would give federal workers up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child:

In almost any area, public employee benefits are out of synch with those in the private sector - whether it's sick time that gets paid even if the government employee doesn't get sick, vacation time, educational cost reimbursements, pensions or what have you.

It's important to remember that, when it comes to paid family leave, it's the United States government that is out of synch with the rest of the world.

Continue reading »

Although the Prairie State has survived the severe economic downturns faced by other states in the region, the local economic landscape isn't too pretty these days. The Illinois Department of Employment Security reports the state's May jobless rate was 6.4 percent, up one full percentage point from last month and 1.5 percent from this time last year. Illinois sits well above the national unemployment rate of 5.5 percent as well.

Employment agency director James Sledge told the AP that this uptick further proves the need for Gov. Blagojevich's capital improvements plan. I'd say it also proves the need for more robust unemployment insurance, something Rep. Mark Kirk and his Republican cohorts in the Illinois Congressional delegation aren't too interested in providing.

Last week, Rep. Mark Kirk joined five other GOP members of the Illinois congressional delegation in voting against a federal extension of unemployment benefits, a move that would help an estimated 4 million Americans whose aid is running out in a time of great need. In both an email to supporters on Sunday and an interview on WIND's John and Cisco in the Morning today, Kirk defended his decision by pointing to a provision in the bill that drops the longstanding requirement that applicants must have worked at least 20 weeks to draw federal unemployment benefits. He and his Republican colleagues claim that this would allow someone who had worked as briefly as two weeks to collect up to 52 weeks of unemployment checks.

Listen here:

Internal mp3

But while it's possible that someone who worked two weeks could ultimately collect federal benefits, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recently explained why it's "misleading" to point to this scenario as evidence that the bill's coverage is overly broad:

No workers would qualify for extended benefits unless they already met the typically quite stringent requirements that states impose for receiving regular unemployment benefits. These requirements are an important reason why only 36 percent of unemployed workers nationally receive regular UI benefits. [...]

Only in rare circumstances could a worker with such a limited work record meet his or her state’s regular UI requirements, which target assistance on workers with a demonstrated attachment to the labor force. Moreover, workers with quite limited work histories who do manage to qualify typically get only a small weekly benefit and only for a very limited period of time (for many fewer weeks than the maximum 26 weeks).

Such is the case in Illinois, where eligibility requirements are comprehensive. Indeed, if you live in the Prairie State and you want to collect federal unemployment benefits for only two weeks of work, here's what you need to do first:

- Qualify for state unemployment benefits by spreading that two weeks of work over at least four consecutive quarters (three-month periods).

- Exhaust the benefits awarded to you by the state. Because of the limited duration of work, you'll probably receive the minimum payment of $51 a week. Though this is highly unlikely due to your limited work record, let's assume that you get 26 weeks of benefits -- the maximum length in Illinois. That would amount to a whopping $4,000 dollars over six months -- $1,200 dollars below the federal poverty level for the same time period.

- Now, after persisting for more than a year-and-a-half on $4,000 -- plus whatever you earned during that two weeks of work -- you're ready to apply for your federal extension. Of course, you'll qualify for a measly weekly benefit and for a duration equal to only half of the number of weeks allotted to you by the state.

As you can see, the scenario Kirk seems to be envisioning -- in which workers quit their jobs after two weeks to live off the taxpayers' dime -- is highly unlikely. And as the CBPP report points out: "the share of the additional benefits under the bill that would go to workers with very limited work records is almost surely miniscule."

Continue reading »

As a young teenager, Jeone Thadison used to sneak out and shoot dice with local drug slingers to help his mother pay the bills. These days, the 19-year-old is playing it straight, having landed a job at a local Boys and Girls Club. But as Chicago Public Radio's Eilee Heikenen-Weiss detailed yesterday, many young Chicagoans aren't having the same luck securing summer employment:

THADISON: Everybody filled out the KIDSTART application, but everybody didn’t get a job.

Although the city’s KidStart budget has increased through the years, the program will still turn down the majority of applicants this summer. Mary Ellen Caron is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services.

CARON: 40,000 young people applied, and in our program, there are 18,000 jobs. So there will be 22,000 who applied that will not have a job through our program.

Andy Sum, the Director of Northeastern’s Center for Labor Market Studies, estimates the figures nationwide are at a historic nadir. Only 34 percent of the nation's teens will be able to obtain some type of employment during the June-August period, the lowest summer employment rate in the last 60 years.

Unfortunately, a proposal by congressional Democrats to create 1 million new summer jobs for young people has stalled. Meanwhile, Gov. Blagojevich's plan to spend $30 million on a summer jobs program aimed at employing young people between the ages of 15 and 22 hinges on the adoption of a capital bill, which looks unlikely for the time being.

Continue reading »

Yesterday from 4 to 6 p.m., over a thousand supporters commemorated the fifth anniversary of Chicago's Congress Hotel strike by marching with the striking workers in front of the Michigan Avenue hotel. In fact, it's not even accurate to write that the crowd gathered "in front," as the double-ringed picket line encircled the entire hotel (half a city block!). The boisterous crowd included unions members from across the city, as well as various community groups and activists, clergy, and elected officials. Meanwhile, passing cars honked their horns in support as the Teamsters drove huge semi-trailers up and down Michigan Avenue. Guests arriving at the hotel were greeted to hundreds of protesters chanting "Shame on you!"

For more on the history of the action -- the "longest active strike in the country," according to SEIU Local 1 -- check out Adam's feature article from earlier this week.

Photos available for download and republication here.

Today, WBEZ's Chip Mitchell reports from Chicago's Congress Hotel on the five-year anniversary of the strike, which I covered in our latest feature article. Celia Salgado, an eight-year veteran of the hotel's housekeeping crew when the strike began in 2003, says the dispute is taking a toll on her and her family:

MITCHELL: Salgado says she didn’t think it would be so hard. To help put two daughters through college, she cleans rooms in another hotel and collects a $200 weekly strike benefit from Local 1. She works and pickets 65 hours a week.

SALGADO: Me enfermé...

MITCHELL: She says the stress has contributed to a stomach infection she’s been trying to shake for two years. The strike has taken a toll on her co-workers as well. Most have drifted away. These days just a few dozen take turns picketing.

To hear more stories like Salgado's and celebrate the grit of the UNITE-HERE members, be sure to stop by the Congress at 4 p.m. today as the union commemorates the anniversary. Information about the action is available here.

When the the jobless rate jumps from 5 percent to 5.5 percent in one month, what's the best way to protect those who've lost their jobs? According to five six GOP members of the Illinois congressional delegation, the answer is: nothing at all.

Reps. Mark Kirk (R-10th), Donald Manzullo (R-16th), Peter Roskam (R-6th), John Shimkus (R-19th), Judy Biggert (R-13th), and Jerry Weller (R-11th) joined 139 of their House colleagues in voting against an extension of unemployment insurance benefits Wednesday night, obstructing a bill that fell just three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a procedural hurdle and override President Bush's promised veto.

The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 would have extended the average $300-a-week benefit check by 13 weeks for all unemployed Americans, a step Bush says is generally reserved for times when the rate jumps considerably higher than its current 5.5 percent. But job statistics are pretty dire: May saw the biggest monthly unemployment rise since 1986 and 8.5 million Americans who want work cannot find it now -- an increase of 1.6 million over the past year, according to the Labor Department. The Washington Post editorial board wrote Tuesday that increasing benefits would have been an more-than-adequate stopgap:

Extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks should have been in the original stimulus package; it is the best arrow left in Congress's quiver. Not only would it help cushion the blow of joblessness to those laid off through no fault of their own, but economic studies suggest that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy because they are quickly spent on goods and services.

Democratic leaders will bring the vote to the floor again Thursday, this time requiring only a majority for passage. For more on the issue, read this recent blog post by Rep. Phil Hare (D-17th).

UPDATE: The bill came up for a vote again in the House today and this time passed with a veto-proof majority. The six GOP members listed above -- Kirk, Manzullo, Roskam, Shimkus, Biggert, and Weller -- all voted against the measure ... again.