Michael Arcuri on Jobs Democrat

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY-15): The House, for weeks, has attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are hardworking people that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Rep. JERRY WELLER (R, IL-11): This important legislation provides additional needed assistance to the long-term unemployed. It's important that we pass this legislation today as our last act before we leave for the election campaign.

This legislation focuses the most additional benefits on workers and States where the unemployment rate is highest and where jobs are hardest to find. This program continues the requirement that those benefiting from extended unemployment benefits had to have worked at least 20 weeks. Americans were rightly concerned about proposals to eliminate that work requirement and allow 39 weeks or, under the legislation before us today, as many as 59 weeks of total unemployment benefits to be paid to those who have previously only worked for a few weeks.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None voiced.

Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill.

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.

Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Increase the federal minimum wage to:
1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

Proponents support voting YES because:

We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.

We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue.

Arcuri signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when:
1. a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted;
2. an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or
3. an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid.
Allows an aggrieved person to obtain relief, including recovery of back pay, for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge. Applies the preceding provisions to claims of compensation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

[Note: A woman named Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit for gender-based discriminatory compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter could only sue for damages going back 180 days, and the 180 days was calculated from the time her employment contract was initiated, i.e., her hire date. This new law changes the 180-day period to two years, and also calculates the date from the time of each paycheck, rather than the hire date. -- Ed.]

Source: S.181&H.R.11 2009-S181 on Jan 29, 2009

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination.

Arcuri signed Paycheck Fairness Act
A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.
• Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.
• Prohibits employer retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee in response to a sex discrimination investigation.
• Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or punitive damages.
• States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.
Source: S.182&H.R.12 2009-S182 on Jan 8, 2009

Click here for definitions & background information on Jobs. Click here for a profile of Michael Arcuri. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Michael Arcuri. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Jobs in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Michael Arcuri's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other NY politicians.
2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Jobs:		Michael Arcuri on other issues:
NY Gubernatorial: David Paterson NY Senatorial: Charles Schumer Jay Townsend Joe DioGuardi Kirsten Gillibrand Special elections in 111th Congress: GA-9:Deal(R) Jun.2010:Graves(R) PA-12:Murtha(D) May 2010:Critz(D) HI-1:Abercrombie(D) May 2010:Djou(R) FL-19:Wexler(D) Apr.2010:Deutch(D) CA-10:Tauscher(D) Nov.2009:Garamendi(D) NY-20:McHugh(R) Nov.2009:Owens(D) CA-32:Solis(D) Jul.2009:Chu(D) IL-5:Emanuel(D) Apr.2009:Quigley(D) NY-20:Gillibrand(D) Mar.2009:Murphy(D)	Senate races in 2010: AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D) AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D) AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R) AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D) CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R) CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R) DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R) FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V) GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D) HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R) IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D) ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D) IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R) IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R) KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R) KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R) LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D) MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D) MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R) NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D) ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R) NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D) NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R) NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R) NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R) OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C) OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D) OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R) PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D) SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D) SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D) UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D) VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D) WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R) WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Main Page Profile NY politicians






Page last updated: Sep 15, 2010