Thankfully, Americans have a new president-elect, whom we hope will be more concerned with the well-being of working class Americans than the present-and-soon-to-be-former president. The 110th session of Congress has ended and the 111th session has begun. Democrats have a solid majority in this new Congress. We will also have a new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, who has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2001, representing the 31st and 32nd congressional districts of California that include East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley. (excerpted from Wikipedia). Solis replaces the current Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao. Solis is very pro-labor, which cannot be good news for UTA.

A few observations about outgoing Secretary of Labor Chao. She has been a rabidly pro-business Secretary of Labor and in our view American workers have suffered under her oversight. Here is one example that UTA supervisors will relate to. As everyone at UTA knows, supervisors are frequently forced to work overtime without pay. How can UTA do this? Because, on August 23, 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor's controversial changes to the overtime regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act went into effect, making substantial modifications to the definition of an "exempt" employee. Low level working supervisors all throughout American industry were reclassified as "executives" and lost over time rights. These changes were sought by business interests and the Bush administration, which claimed that the laws needed clarification and that few workers would be affected. The Bush administration called the new regulations "FairPay." But other organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, claimed the changes would make millions of additional workers ineligible to obtain relief under the FLSA for overtime pay. Attempts in Congress to overturn the new regulations were unsuccessful. (excerpted from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act We believe that UTA has abused this new regulation in a shocking and unconscionable manner but under the Bush administration and Elaine Chao's Department of Labor, forcing supervisors to work for no pay is quite acceptable. This same Department of Labor refused to enforce its own labor standards, laws and regulations when we took UTA to court in an effort to vindicate the established right to select our own union representation and not have a despised union forced on us by UTA and ATU Local 382. So, good riddance, Elaine Chao!

The 110th Congress is over. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. The 110th did not pass a bill to give the judiciary a large pay raise as had been hoped for by federal judges and some members of Congress, notably Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy was the sponsor of S.1638, a bill to raise the salary of federal judges by 29%. He had about 28 Senate co-sponsors but the bill, and a corresponding House bill, H.R.3753, were never passed by the full Congress. As you can imagine, federal judges, who make at least $170,000 per year, are dismayed about this. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his newly released 2008 year-end report, talked of little else. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2008year-endreport.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts' report makes essentially the same arguments he has made in his previous two year-end reports on the Judiciary. He continues to argue that the fate of the nation rests on a judicial pay raise yet has shown no empirical evidence of the necessity of a such a raise. He points only to the pay of top attorneys in the private sector compared to the salaries of the federal judiciary to make his arguments. Over the course of the past year I have sent information about our case to many members of Congress and other interested parties. I pointed out that Congress was required to hold debates on S.1638 and H.R.3753 and that any real debate should include testimony from those who have been wronged by the judicial system. Further, I said that our attorney should be allowed to testify about what was done to us in federal court and that until the judiciary is willing to reform itself there should be no judicial salary increase. Debates were never held and the bills did not pass. I will never know if my letters were in any way responsible for the refusal of Congress to grant a pay raise to the federal judiciary. If so, then to the entire federal judiciary I would point to our case and its aftermath as "the law of unintended consequences."

For about six months I have been engaged in a debate about the advisability of a raise for the judiciary on the Military Times website. A lot or research by my debating opponent and myself went into this debate and while it got pretty heated it is very informative. Should you want to know more about the subject you can find this debate at: http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1564520

In Chief Justice Roberts' year-end report, no mention is made of problems within the judiciary. He apparently thinks that the judicial system is working just fine and sees no reason to address abuses or review questionable cases. Nowhere in his report does the Chief Justice express concern for the types of abuses that we endured in federal court (which the Supreme Court was alerted to) or reassure the American public that judicial dishonestly, incompetence or extremism will be dealt with by judicial oversight. The Roberts' Court has an obligation to oversee the lower courts and to the best of its ability guarantee every American justice. Since it chooses not to do that then it is a disgrace for Chief Justice Roberts to demand more money.

I will also say good riddance to the Federalist Society; that arrogant, subversive, fanatical, extremist, right-wing political/legal group that pretends to be a debating society. This insidious group, noted for their opposition to labor rights, seeks nothing less than the judicial repeal of the "New Deal." Their support of corporate America, at the expense of workers and the American public, can be found in many of their legal decisions. (Our case was certainly a good example.) Their influence in the failed Bush administration is well known. Former district court judge Paul Cassell and Tenth Circuit Court Judge Timothy Tymkovich were members at the time our case was in federal court. (While I have no idea whether former judge Cassell still belongs, Judge Tymkovich does.) Also, Tenth Circuit Court Judge and former Chief Judge Deanell Tacha is closely associated with this noxious group. These judges were all riding high when the Federalist Society had so much influence in the Bush administration and each probably thought that their Federalist Society credentials would propel them up the judicial or governmental ladder. None had the foresight to see that the political landscape might change dramatically in the next election. Well, we did see it coming and addressed that possibility in our September 24, 2007 post on this blog. http://www.utahtransitworker.org/2007.09.01_arch.html It will be interesting to see whether members of the Federalist Society have the courage of their convictions and stay in this organization, particularly if the Obama administration is fairly centrist as early indications suggest. My guess is that many will drop their membership now that it is a liability. As I said, "Good riddance."

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. 
     Sir Winston Churchill

Happy New Year.  Lisa Burke