By Emily Kaiser

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Long after President Barack Obama's first term ends in 2013, millions of U.S. families will still be paying the price for the recession.

From auto workers in Detroit too old for retraining, to Hispanic migrants in Arizona with no homes to build, to new college graduates competing with experienced workers for scarce jobs, more and more people are facing long-lasting unemployment.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the jobless rate has climbed 4.6 percentage points to 9.5 percent, the biggest jump since the Great Depression. Worse, the mean duration of unemployment is now almost 6 months, the highest on record.

Although Obama frequently points out he inherited the recession from his predecessor, George W. Bush, the fallout will frame his legacy, presenting a quandary for a president elected on a slogan of "Yes We Can."

Unless Obama figures out how to repair the job market, the can-do attitude sparked by his election may be replaced by despair, leaving deep economic and social scars that undermine his political goals.

GONE FOR GOOD

Joblessness typically rises during recessions as weak demand prompts companies to cut production and jobs. Normally those workers are rehired once the economy recovers.

For example, in the back-to-back recessions of the early 1980s, the jobless rate peaked at 10.8 percent. Thanks to a strong recovery, that receded to 8.3 percent one year after the downturn ended.

This pattern has changed in recent years and jobs lost in recessions are much slower to return, if they come back at all. In the 2001 slump, unemployment peaked 19 months after the recession ended, and it was another three years before the jobless rate came close to pre-recession levels.

The following statement by Rick Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, was released this afternoon:

Today's announcement of Boeing's purchase of the Vought Aircraft plant in South Carolina is indeed a wake-up call -- one that business and labor need to work together to keep Washington an excellent place to do business and build on our successes in that area. Unfortunately, the content and tone of what some business lobbying groups and politicians are saying today is counterproductive to that effort.

Organized labor in Washington state rejects the notion that this news is a signal that Washington is a bad place to do business. Boeing's 787 business strategy to outsource production around the world -- leaving only the final assembly to be done here in the Puget Sound area -- has been the clear culprit in the delay of the 787's rollout. The Vought purchase is a welcome sign that Boeing intends to regain some control of its supply chain and that the 787 will move successfully forward, not a reason to panic about whether the company has decided to move out of our state.

Organized labor also rejects the suggestion that recent labor disputes at Boeing are the unions' fault, or that government should somehow intervene to prevent these disputes. Again, at the heart of these disputes has been Boeing's business strategy to outsource what were once good-paying Boeing jobs to non-union contractors in Washington state and around the world. In recent years, Boeing employees have been seeking contract language that achieves the same thing that all of us hope to achieve: preserving good Boeing jobs here in the Puget Sound.

By Shobhana Chandra
Bloomberg

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Employers in the U.S. cut 467,000 jobs in June, the unemployment rate rose and hourly earnings stagnated, offering little evidence the Obama administration’s stimulus package is shoring up the labor market.

The payroll decline was more than forecast and followed a 322,000 drop in May, according to Labor Department figures released today in Washington. The jobless rate jumped to 9.5 percent, the highest since August 1983, from 9.4 percent.

Unemployment is projected to keep rising for the rest of the year just as the income boost from the stimulus package fades, undermining prospects for a sustained rebound in household purchases, analysts said. As companies from General Motors Corp. to Kimberly-Clark Corp. cut costs, the lack of jobs will restrain growth.

“This will be another jobless recovery,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina. “We may get positive economic growth driven largely by federal spending, but people on the street will say, ‘Where are the jobs?’”

Stocks slid after the report, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropping 2.2 percent to 903.43 at 10:16 a.m. in New York. Treasuries rose, sending yields on benchmark 10-year notes to 3.512 percent from 3.538 percent late yesterday.

Unemployment Claims

The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits last week fell in line with forecasts, Labor also said, indicating firings remain elevated. Initial jobless claims dropped by 16,000 to 614,000 in the week ended June 27, from a revised 630,000 the week before.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar,
Associated Press Writer

Buzz up! 1 Print.WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least at half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.

The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

After years of strenuous opposition, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, announced yesterday that it supports a controversial proposal requiring businesses to contribute to the cost of employee health insurance.

The retailing giant's endorsement comes as the push and pull on health reform intensifies, and it could have broad economic and political consequences. Many business groups, displeased with the shape of the legislation that has emerged so far, have begun to mobilize against President Obama's top domestic priority.

Obama is countering with a series of public events -- including today's town hall meeting in Annandale -- and private negotiations with industry players such as Wal-Mart.

Yesterday's announcement, which came after a White House meeting, brought together Wal-Mart, the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and the Service Employees International Union, which has often sparred with the retailer over the benefits it provides its 1.4 million workers.

"We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation," leaders of the three groups wrote in a letter to Obama. "This choice will require employers to consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of reduced health care cost increases."

U.S. economy shed a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June
The Associated Press

U.S. employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Workers also saw weekly wages fall, suggesting Americans will have little appetite to spend and the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

President Barack Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said he is "deeply concerned" about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about "whether they will be next" to suffer an economic blow. He also expressed disappointment over the weak employment figures, acknowledging that "what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost."

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected and average weekly earnings dropped to the lowest level in nearly a year.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Anyone with experience in the labor movement knows that taking cases to arbitration is rarely a “slam-dunk” for the union.

Yet a new campaign by anti-union employer groups aims to rally unknowing citizens and politicians against a provision of the Employee Free Choice Act that provides for mandatory arbitration if a first contract is not reached within 90 days of a new bargaining unit being certified.  The employers claim that such a system would give unions an unfair advantage.

A paid advertising blitz, directed at Washington, D.C., newspapers that are read by members of Congress, policy makers and reporters is challenging the employers’ misinformation. The strong, simple message is being carried by Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, Politico, and The Hill.

The ad, designed by American Rights at Work, says, “There’s only one case where big business opposes the use of arbitration.” That is in bargaining contracts with workers.   “They want to use unfair delay tactics to their advantage.”

Check out the ad.  Visit www.AmericanRightsatWork.org.

June 2009 Electrical Currents

By LOUISE RADNOFSKY and T.W. FARNAM 
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs.

The expenditures were legal, properly accounted for and drawn from allowances the U.S. government grants to lawmakers. Equipment purchased with office expense accounts must be returned to the House or the federal General Services Administration when a lawmaker leaves office.

But as British politicians come under widening scorn for spending public money on everything from candy bars to moat-dredging, an examination of U.S. lawmakers' expense claims shows Washington's elected officials have also used public funds for eye-catching purchases.

U.S. politicians, unlike their counterparts in Great Britain, can't bill taxpayers for personal living expenses. The U.S. Treasury gives them an allowance to cover "official and representational expenses," according to congressional rules, and the lawmakers enjoy a fair amount of discretion in how they use the funds.

The Senate and House release volumes of the reimbursement requests for these allowances, but do not make them available electronically. A Wall Street Journal review of thousands of pages of these records for 2008 expenses showed most lawmaker spending flowed to areas such as staff salaries, travel, office rent and supplies, and printing and mailing.