AFL-CIO Blog

  • AFL-CIO Is Profiling Labor Leaders and Activists for Black History Month
    AFL-CIO Is Profiling Labor Leaders and Activists for Black History Month AFL-CIO For Black History Month, the AFL-CIO is spotlighting various African American leaders and activists who have worked at the intersection of civil and labor rights. First, let's take a look back at our past profiles: New profiles: Check back throughout February as we add even more names to this prestigious list.  Kenneth Quinnell Mon, 02/24/2020 - 13:39 Tags: Black History Month — Feb 24
  • Black History Month Profiles: Rev. George W. Lee
    Black History Month Profiles: Rev. George W. Lee Wikimedia Commons For Black History Month, the AFL-CIO is spotlighting various African American leaders and activists who have worked at the intersection of civil and labor rights, with a particular focus on voting rights. Without access to the ballot box and an assurance that everyone's vote counts, civil and labor rights are among the first to be taken away from working people. Today, we're looking at the Rev. George W. Lee. In 1955, the murder of Emmett Till shocked the United States and was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. But Till wasn't the only prominent murder of an African American in Mississippi that year and the murder of the Rev. George W. Lee not only informed the reaction to Till's murder, but Lee's murder was part of the pathway to the passage of the Voting Rights Act a decade later. Lee lived in Humphreys County, which was only one county away from where Till was murdered later in the year. Before becoming an activist, Lee grew up in Edwards, Mississippi. His mother was an illiterate plantation woman who died when Lee was young. While living with his aunt, Lee successfully graduated high school, which was rare for Southern black men. He later worked in New Orleans before becoming a preacher in Belzoni, Mississippi, in the state's delta area. Poverty was high in Belzoni, and Lee worked hard to improve himself. He served as pastor at four different churches, opened a grocery store and his wife, Rosebud, ran a printing business out of the house. Lee was the first black person in Humphreys County to register to vote in recent memory. He and a friend Gus Courts, then co-founded a local branch of the NAACP. By 1955, Lee and Courts had registered nearly all of the county's 90 eligible black voters.  But local whites, led by the notorious Citizens Councils were purging black people from the voting rolls through economic pressure, intimidation and violence. Many of Belzoni's black citizens were pressured into dropping themselves from the voting rolls, but Lee and Courts stood firm. Lee was a vice president in the Regional Council of Negro Leadership. The organization not only focused on improving the skills of black people in the state, but they also pursued voting rights and led a successful boycott of gas stations that discriminated against black people. Before long, Lee had developed into a top-notch public speaker who rallied black voters with words like: "Pray not for your mom and pop. They've gone to heaven. Pray you can make it through this hell." The racists of Belzoni reacted just as strongly. Less than a month after Lee gave spoke those words at the Regional Council of Negro Leadership convention, he was murdered. Just before midnight on May 7, 1955, an assailant fired three shotgun blasts into Lee's car and he died from the shots before he could be treated at the local hospital. At the time Medgar Evers was a field secretary for the NAACP, and he was assigned to investigate the Lee murder. The work Evers did in this case was a springboard for his later civil rights activism. Evers found that Lee had received a threatening note to drop his voter registration three days before the murder. The autopsy found that lead pellets consistent with buckshot killed Lee, but the local sheriff claimed that the death was a traffic accident and that the lead pellets were "dental fillings" knocked loose during the car crash that ensued from the assault. Much like Emmett Till later that year, Lee's funeral was a media event for black newspapers. Rosebud Lee decided to hold an open-coffin ceremony. Black newspapers shared the photo of Lee's mutilated corpse. When Till was lynched, his photo in black newspapers was an important part of spurring action in the civil rights movement. Lee's funeral was a precursor to that type of communication to the public during the civil rights movement. Civil rights activists continued searching for evidence to pinpoint Lee's killers, but the FBI investigation ran out of steam because potential witnesses were afraid to talk. No one was ever charged with Lee's murder. Later, Lee's partner Gus Courts was also shot, although he survived the assault. The efforts of Lee (and Court) were important in showing how to register black voters in the South in the face of violent opposition. Rosebud's decision to reveal the violence against her husband to the world would set the table for the successes of the civil rights and voting rights movements. Kenneth Quinnell Thu, 02/13/2020 - 13:20 Tags: Black History Month — Feb 13
  • Responsible Investors Overwhelmingly Reject SEC Proposals to Entrench CEOs
    Responsible Investors Overwhelmingly Reject SEC Proposals to Entrench CEOs Earlier this month, responsible investors filed thousands of comments with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to oppose a rule making that will entrench corporate CEOs from accountability on environmental, social and governance issues. Pension plans, socially responsible investors, faith-based funds, individual investors and investor rights groups strongly opposed the SEC power grab by CEOs and their corporate lobbyists. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (UMWA) said: “We strongly oppose the SEC's shareholder proposal rule changes that will limit the ability of working people and their pension plans to have a voice in the companies that we invest in.” The SEC voted to propose these pro-CEO rule changes in a partisan 3–2 vote in November last year. The SEC’s proposals include a variety of new restrictions on the ability of shareholders to file proposals. These shareholder proposals encourage reforms on topics including executive compensation, workers’ rights and board diversity. The SEC estimates that its proposed rule changes will reduce the number of shareholder proposals by more than 37%. Secondly, the SEC has proposed to allow companies to undermine the independence of proxy advisers who recommend how shareholders vote at company annual meetings. The SEC proposal will allow companies to “pre-review” proxy voting advice before it is given to investors. Companies may threaten to sue if proxy advisers do not make their requested changes.  In two letters to the SEC, the AFL-CIO defended the rights of union members’ pension plans to file shareholder proposals and to vote proxies using independent advice. “The SEC should protect the rights of working people as the real main street investors, not the interests of overpaid and unaccountable corporate CEOs,” Trumka explained. Kenneth Quinnell Tue, 02/11/2020 - 15:18 — Feb 11
  • The Trump Budget: The Other Shoe Drops
    The Trump Budget: The Other Shoe Drops When Congress passed a nearly $2 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy in 2017, we warned that the obscene cost of this tax cut bill would be used as a pretext to cut programs that benefit working people. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (UMWA) said at the time that the 2017 tax bill was:
    Nothing but a con game, and working people are the ones they’re trying to con. Here we go again. First comes the promise that tax giveaways for the wealthy and big corporations will trickle down to the rest of us. Then comes the promise that tax cuts will pay for themselves. Then comes the promise that they want to stop offshoring. And finally, we find out that none of these things is true, and the people responsible for wasting trillions of dollars on tax giveaways to the rich tell us we have no choice but to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, education and infrastructure. There always seems to be plenty of money for millionaires and big corporations but never enough money to do anything for working people.
    Now those predictions are coming true, as President Trump has released his new budget plan for the coming year. The president proposes to cut $2 trillion from safety net programs, which is about the same amount as the cost of the 2017 tax bill. His budget plan would cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. The Labor Department gets whacked by $1.3 billion. Trade Adjustment Assistance for people who lose their jobs to imports is slashed by nearly $400 million, and a program to help U.S. manufacturing companies create jobs is eliminated. The budget plan also eliminates subsidized student loans and the public service student loan forgiveness program. While supporters of the 2017 tax bill promised it would benefit working people, almost all of its benefits have gone to corporations and the wealthy, and very little has trickled down to working people. Paychecks are still flat, and too many working people still have to work more than one job just to make ends meet. Wages grew by only 0% in September, -0.1% in October, -0.1% in November and -0.1% in December, when adjusted for inflation. To make things worse, the president’s budget proposes another tax cut that goes disproportionately to the wealthy⁠—extending the tax cuts from the 2017 tax bill for another 10 years at a cost of $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Two-thirds of these tax cuts would go to the richest 20% of all taxpayers. Here we go again. They keep running the same play because it keeps working. Since 2001, the wealthiest 1% of all taxpayers have gotten $2 trillion in tax cuts, and federal tax revenues have been reduced by $5.1 trillion. This is money that should have been used to make life better for working people⁠—for example, by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, funding quality public education for every child and guaranteeing retirement security for our seniors⁠—rather than building up the fortunes of the 1%. Kenneth Quinnell Tue, 02/11/2020 - 11:48     — Feb 11
  • New Trump Rules Are a Sneak Attack on Medicaid
    New Trump Rules Are a Sneak Attack on Medicaid There are the things politicians say, and then there are things they do. When Donald Trump was running for office, he promised there would be no cuts to Medicaid. As president, he promised “health care for everyone.” His aides promised “no one will lose coverage” and “no one will be worse off.” These promises sounded great and reassured voters.  But then last week, the administration quietly released a new policy that is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb⁠—a health care IED that looks harmless but has the potential to cause tremendous financial damage to state Medicaid programs and take health care away from people who can least afford it. The new policy caps what the federal government will pay for health care under Medicaid. Currently, the federal government pays for at least half of the cost of all of the health care needed by everyone eligible for the coverage. Under the new policy, there will be a ceiling on federal funding for those people who qualified for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). That lump sum payment may not be enough, if for example, the cost of medical care rises faster than expected. Since the goal of the policy is to save money, it is expected that states will reduce the level of coverage or limit eligibility if they bump up against the ceiling of federal funding.   According to Kaiser Family Foundation, some 12 million additional people in 35 states have used the ACA to get coverage through the Medicaid program. Many of these are workers who were not eligible for traditional Medicaid. We often do not appreciate how access to Medicaid has improved the health of working families. According to the Center for American Progress, Medicaid expansion under the ACA has reduced mortality rates by 6% in the newly eligible beneficiary population and reduced racial disparities in cancer treatment. Medicaid expansion has also reduced the rate of hospital closures, lowered uncompensated costs, raised wages in the health care field and increased state revenue. States that expanded Medicaid saw an average 13% decline in residents with medical debt⁠—further evidence of how the Medicaid benefit improves the living standard of working families that would otherwise face major medical bills.  A block grant would allow states to reduce benefits for this group of people that are new to Medicaid and cut funding for a range of “optional” services like dental care and prescription drug coverage traditionally offered under the program. Medicaid cuts would hurt immigrant enrollees, but it would also harm their U.S. citizen children. As FamiliesUSA notes, when parents have a hard time accessing Medicaid, their children are likely to lose access to care as well.  The guidance issued by the administration ignores the historical lessons of the past: We need a flexible health care program that helps individuals and communities respond to recessions, epidemics or natural disasters. Would Houston or Iowa be better off with reduced Medicaid spending after the devastated floods in their community? Would California be better off after an awful series of wildfires destroyed whole communities? Would the country be better able to handle the thousands of people who may need emergency care in a medical pandemic with capped funding?  Replacing the open-ended federal commitment to state Medicaid programs with block grants is a gamble for governors, and the odds are this bet will end up devastating state budgets and forcing harmful cuts in coverage and benefits. Maybe that is why the administration’s new Medicaid policy was rolled out as if the president has something to hide. Department of Health and Human Services officials have purposely issued the policy through an administrative process that doesn't allow for public comment. Taking this quiet approach makes sense, though, since this is the same policy that was rejected three times by Congress in 2017 and was unpopular at the polls in 2018. We can only hope that voters will take the same notice of it in 2020 and let their state officials know that this is not a good option for their communities. Kenneth Quinnell Fri, 02/07/2020 - 14:52 — Feb 7