Labor News » peoplesworld

Ohio unions remain vigilant against anti-worker blitz

Bruce Bostick — Tue, 21 May 2013 00:48:00 -0400

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Labor and the huge We Are Ohio coalition have been holding a series of mass meetings across the state, organizing against introduction of three right to work (for less) bills by right-wing GOP Ohio legislators this session. Last week at the Carpenters Union Hall in Columbus, the 14^th such gathering was an overflow crowd to mobilize against the bills that would strip unions of negotiating power.

"The threat is real," stated AFL-CIO rep Joan Fluharty opening the meeting. "For years we've told people that there is a threat that corporate politicians would try to jam right to-work (for less) legislation thru the legislature here. Well, it's no longer a threat! They've introduced the bills. It's up to us to get organized and fight. If we don't they'll take everything we have!"

Meanwhile, the crowd was still piling in, with people having to park in nearby lots, streets and the alley near the hall.

"We had to get here, this is our fight," said Bob Gossman, president of the United Auto Workers Retiree Council. "We've seen what they did right next door in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those are all strong union states. The right-wingers are out to destroy unions because we are the only line of defense workers have. Without unions, nobody is there to stop the corporate power-grab!"

Gossman was leading a large delegation of UAW workers and retirees into the meeting.

"They've all been like this, the halls just won't hold them," said Matt Smith, political director for the Ohio AFL-CIO. "The Republicans are really waking up our sleeping giant. Every meeting just keeps getting bigger and more enthusiastic."

"This is a fight they clearly don't want to have right now," said Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga, "with the operative term being 'right now.' Last year they tried the same thing, attacking unions and the middle class with Senate Bill 5, and then were given a solid whipping by Ohio voters. They're still smarting from that, but we need to get ready, mobilized. They will try to bring them back, just like Republican Governors did in Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin.

"They all said they were against right-to-work, but jammed them thru anyway. They're waiting on the lame-duck session next year and we have no intention of just sitting and waiting. With all our allies, we're getting organized, educated and mobilized and united, we'll win again!"

Republican Governor Kasich and GOP House Speaker Batchelder, after the big mobilization by unions and allies, with hundreds of workers lobbying reps at the statehouse and two large union-led rallies, have sidelined the bills.

"We're stronger together," shouted Mike Weiman, Political Affairs Director of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), addressing the overflow crowd. "They tried to divide us, one against another, last year and we told them---no way! We're union and we are sticking with organized labor and the middle class."

Discussing immediate action plans, all present signed pledge cards, and groups were set up to begin visiting Ohio House reps, with the goal of forcing all to take a position of RTW. Others worked on letters to editors and outreach. Phone banks are now up and running. Nobody left empty-handed or looking for things to do.

"It never stops," said Don Coulter, president of the Columbus chapter of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees. "They just keep trying to take every gain workers fought for and won. But if they want the fight, there are more of us than them. We'll whip them worst this time!"

Photo: DailyKos

Today in labor history: Homestead Act signed, for good and bad

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Mon, 20 May 2013 23:47:00 -0400

On May 20, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act, opening government-owned land to small family farmers, who became known as "homesteaders." It was a freedom opportunity for many, but also resulted in massive displacement of Native Americans and the growth of big railroad empires.

The act had two main goals: to sell off government land to ordinary citizens, and to use the land in what was considered an economically efficient manner. Previously, the U.S. government auctioned or sold public land in large lots that ordinary citizens could not afford to buy or manage. The Homestead Act was meant to favor the ordinary American, and to make assimilated citizens out of immigrants, African Americans, and, later, forced assimilation of Indians through the 1871 and 1887 Dawes Acts, supposedly for their own good.

The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try farming for five years. The individual had to be at least 21 years old and was required to build a house on the property. Farmers could buy the 160 acres after six months at $1.25 an acre. Many homesteaders could not handle the hardships of frontier life and gave up before five years. If a homesteader quit, his or her land reverted back to the government and was offered to the public again. Ultimately, these lands often ended up as government property or in the hands of land speculators. If, after five years, the farmer could prove his or her homestead successful, the homesteader paid $18 for a "proved" certificate and received a deed to the land.

The Homestead Act allowed African Americans, persecuted and famine-struck immigrants, and even women a chance to seek freedom and a better life in the West. In the Reconstruction South during the 1870s, harsh racism pushed former slaves to seek refuge in the Midwest, taking advantage of the Homestead Act to try to start new lives there.

In the process, open land was turned into private property, and much of the land offered by the government was purchased by individuals acting as "fronts" for land speculators who sought access to the vast untapped mining, timber and water resources of the West.

Moreover, the beginnings of industrialization and the growing significance of railroads in the transport of goods skewed land distribution to the benefit of railroad companies. In the 10 years before passage of the Homestead Act, almost 128 million acres of land were granted to railroads, which often included the most agriculturally viable land. When land along railroad lines were opened up to the public, the land was often snapped up by speculators and later resold at high prices.

And ironically, in the search for freedom, homesteaders - and speculators - encroached on Native American territory, frequently in aggressive and bloody fashion. Many settlers and speculators began to agitate for expansion of homesteading into land that had been assigned to Indians under the 1851 Indian Appropriations Act. The government responded by stripping Indians of the last semblance of sovereignty they had by abolishing the reservation system as well as their honoring of tribes as separate entities from the United States.

Many settlers were not successful and left, but many stuck it out. The Homestead Act endured as the driving force for many Americans and immigrants seeking the "American dream." It transformed the West, with small farms evolving into towns and even cities, with a network of railroads, and later highways, and industry springing up as well. It also triggered many conflicts between individual farmers and railroad companies who owned the majority of Western territory.

Although the act was officially repealed by Congress in 1976, one last title for 80 acres in Alaska was given to Kenneth Deardorf in 1979.

Photo: Four Chrisman sisters in front of a sod house in Goheen settlement in Custer County, Neb., 1886. All four sisters had their own separate plot of land. Like the Chrisman sisters, many women experienced autonomy in the West. Nebraska State Historical Society

Milwaukee low wage workers walk off the job

Joseph Zimmermann — Fri, 17 May 2013 23:05:00 -0400

Taking their cue from workers in St. Louis, Chicago, New York and Detroit, fast food workers took to the streets of Milwaukee on Wednesday in a one-day work stoppage to demand a $15.00 an hour wage.

Workers came from behind the cash registers and out of the kitchens of such flagship fast food companies as McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's.

Low wage retailers such as Simply Fashion and Foot Action also saw their employees walk out in unity to demand the right to form a union without fear of retaliation. Union and community groups stood with the workers in their demand for a living wage.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the strike action "ended in a late-afternoon rally in the middle of W. Wisconsin Ave. in front of The Shops at Grand Avenue, where Katina Carter, organizer with Wisconsin Jobs Now, told more than 200 demonstrators that wages have to increase for the benefit of local economies. 'How can Milwaukee neighborhoods survive if we don't have enough money to put back into them?' she asked."

Milwaukee McDonald's employee Stephanie Sanders noted, "About 65% of the jobs added since the recession have been low-wage ones and unfortunately, the Economic Policy Institute projects that one out of every four workers will be in low-wage jobs by 2020."

Commenting on the nationwide phenomenon of unorganized workers taking to the streets Sanders said, "Fast food and retail outlets are the 'new' factory floor and like thousands of workers before us, we're organizing to demand better pay and conditions."

Wisconsin's labor movement supported the one-day action. JSonline quotes Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO as saying, "The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO is proud to stand in solidarity with striking fast food workers whose actions today are calling attention to income inequality, worker exploitation, and the right to a living wage and to a union."

The protest comes on the heels of a shocking report released in April that revealed Wisconsin to have the highest rate of incarcerated African American males in the nation.

In an opinion-editorial published earlier this month in the Journal Sentinel, John Pawasarat, director of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute wrote, "Prison time is the most serious barrier to employment for Wisconsin male workers, making ex-offender populations the most difficult to place and sustain in full-time employment. When driver's licensing history is also considered, transportation barriers make successful labor force attachment even less likely."

Low wage jobs, such as fast food and discount retail, remain the only option for many of those struggling to feed their families.

Photo: Milwaukee fast food workers in this 2012 photo demonstrate for higher wages (Light Brigading/CC).

Today in labor history: Supreme Court rules on Brown v. Board of Education

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:16:00 -0400

On this day in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools were unconstitutional. The court's ruling overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 that legalized "separate but equal" facilities.

The case was brought by a group of Topeka, Kansas, parents led by Oliver Brown, a welder for the Santa Fe Railroad.

Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African American justice, argued the case before the court. The Warren's Court decision was unanimous.

Today segregation remains rife with some 80 percent of Latino students and 74 percent of black students enrolled in schools where the majority of students are not white.

Photo: The Supreme Court with Earl Warren as chief justice ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that "separate but equal" schools were unconstitutional (CC).

Today in labor history: Congress passes notorious Sedition Act

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:52:00 -0400

On May 16, 1918, Congress passed the Sedition Act, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, execution and deportation of dozens of unionists, anarchists and communists. The Sedition Act did not exist as a separate law under the U.S. code-it consisted entirely of revisions to the Espionage Act of 1917.

World War I

The U.S. was a formal participant in World War I from April 6, 1917 until the war's end on November 11, 1918. Before entering the war, the U.S. had remained neutral, though an important supplier to Britain and other Allied powers. During the war, the U.S. mobilized over 4,000,000 military personnel. WWI cost over 110,000 U.S. deaths, including 43,000 due to the influenza pandemic. The war saw a significant increase in the size of the US military.

From unpatriotic speech to all criticism of the U.S. Government

To punish unpatriotic speech during wartime, Rep. Percy Quin (D-Miss.), a co-sponsor of the bill, summarized its intent: "I want to curb these fellows," he said, "who are disloyal in their hearts." The Espionage Act of 1917 passed the previous year, had already criminalized speech that could have the effect of limiting military recruitment-but the Sedition Act broadened these penalties to include all criticism of the U.S. government.

The intended targets included the leaders of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), referred to as "pernicious vermin" by Sedition Act co-sponsor Sen. Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.). The language of the amendment was based on Montana's notorious anti-sedition law, under which 79 people were convicted.

Eugene Debs

Militant union leader Eugene Debs (1855-1926) was sentenced to 10 years in prison for opposing U.S. Entry into World War I.

One year after the Espionage and Sedition Act was voted into law, Debs was in Canton, Ohio for a Socialist Party convention. He was arrested for making a speech considered "anti-war" by the Canton district attorney.

Immigrant workers face the Palmer Raids

In the aftermath of World War I and the 1917 Russian Revolution, coupled with a sharp downturn in the capitalist economy worldwide, the U.S. ruling class trembled. Radical ideas of socialism captured working people's imagination as they faced unemployment, hunger and poverty under capitalism. If U.S.-born and foreign-born working people were to unite, that could spell trouble for Wall Street and their political titans of the time. Fomenting "Red Scare" and xenophobia would work to their advantage. The same tactics were used against strikers and workers - both U.S. and foreign born - during the 1919 steel strike, for example.

In 1919 the infamous Palmer Raids began. Several thousand anarchists, communists and socialists were jailed as a result. Immigrant workers of many nationalities were targeted. At the start of the raids Russian workers were singled out. Many were deported. Early on J. Edgar Hoover (assistant to Palmer) also focused on the Communist Party and devised a scheme for arresting workers without giving notice of the right to an attorney. All told some 10,000 were arrested.

COINTELPRO and the attack on Black activists

Besides anti-communism, Hoover's great fear was that a "Black messiah" would lead the African American people of the United States into empowerment. Motivated by that fear, Hoover and his FBI agents, working through COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) and in cooperation with state and local police forces as well as private vigilante groups, targeted virtually all branches and leaders of the Black movement for equality and liberation.

The recent new attack on Assata Shakur, and on Cuba through her, has caused indignation. The White House, and the Justice and State Departments should be pressured to stop these dangerous games, drop the bounty for Assata, take Cuba off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, and work toward normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.

Today's attacks on the Bill of Rights

Among other organizations, the Center for Constitution Rights singles out these current issues: Illegal Detentions and Guantanamo, Surveillance and Attacks on Dissent, Criminal Justice and Mass Incarceration, Corporate Human Rights Abuse, Government Abuse of Power, Racial, Gender and Economic Justice, International Law and Accountability.

Photo: Numerous signs dotted Manhattan's walls, bus stops and subway entrances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. (Israel Smith/PW)

On minimum wage, it's peanut butter OR jelly

Michael Moore — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:36:00 -0400

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Press Associates) - Peanut butter or jelly? Juice or coffee? Dry spaghetti or ravioli in a can? Those aren't decisions Rep. Jason Metsa usually wrestles with in the grocery store, but the Iron Range DFLer tightened his belt for five days last month, after signing a pledge to live on Minnesota's minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO, issued the minimum-wage challenge to state lawmakers in the hopes of drumming up support for a Minnesota House bill to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.95 per hour.

A final vote on the Minnesota measure may occur as early as the week of May 20. Minnesota is one of several states that aren't waiting for the dysfunctional U.S. Congress to heed President Obama's proposal to raise the federal minimum wage, now $7.25 hourly. Those states are raising the wage on their own.

Metsa, who represents an historically working class area around Duluth, accepted the challenge, he said, "to better understand an economic situation many of us have never been exposed to."

In events throughout one week last month, Metsa searched for affordable housing, considered his transportation options and participated in a forum with actual minimum-wage workers, who earn $290 for working a 40-hour week.

But first, the 32-year-old representative needed food.

Using the JOBS NOW Coalition's Family Budget Calculator as a guide, Metsa allowed himself $35 for food and drink. After spending $7 the previous day, he arrived at the Cub Foods in St. Paul's Midway neighborhood on April 9 with $28 to spend and, after skipping breakfast, an empty stomach to fill.

"I'm already hungry," he said, flipping through a stack of coupons he had clipped from the Cub circular.

His game plan, Metsa said, would be to stock up on the staples - bread, milk, eggs, and pasta. Any leftover money might provide for a "splurge" item, and Metsa pocketed a coupon for Chef Boyardee ravioli just in case.

Store managers, media members, and Working America staff trailed Metsa as he pushed his cart through the aisles, comparing prices and inspecting the in-store specials.

It was more thought, Metsa admitted, than he had ever put into grocery shopping before.

"When I shop for groceries at home, I think more about what I'm hungry for or what's good for me," he said. "Today it was about how I can get full for $28 this week."

Desserts and soda - items, Metsa acknowledged, that would usually be in his shopping cart - were out. So too, Metsa discovered, were meats and other protein items, which proved "too expensive, even with a coupon."

When he finally reached the checkout aisle, Metsa got more bad news: He'd gone over his budget. A loaf of bread, a container of frozen juice and, yes, a can of ravioli would have to go back on the shelves.

What ended up in Metsa's grocery cart?

Produce: One head of iceberg lettuce ($1.48), five bananas ($1.04) and three pounds of russet potatoes ($1.05).
Meat and Dairy: One pack of salami ($1.99), one gallon of milk ($2.99), a dozen large eggs ($1.98) and a wedge of cheese ($2.99).
Dry, Canned and Frozen Goods: One loaf of bread ($1.19), one jar of peanut butter ($4.35), one frozen container of juice ($1.59), one package of spaghetti (88 cents), one can of spaghetti sauce (88 cents), a case of instant-noodle cups ($2.49) and coffee ($3.74).

As he bagged his groceries, Metsa said he was confident the food he'd purchased would be enough to sustain him until the following weekend.

Bree Halverson, statewide director of Working America, asked how that might change if Metsa had a dependent child at home. According to the JOBS NOW Coalition, 35 percent of workers affected by raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour are married or are parents.

He's single, but the representative had no trouble putting himself in those shoes.

"I think I'd drop my car insurance and make sure my kids could eat," Metsa said.

"Otherwise, it would be impossible. You couldn't do it without being on public assistance. "

Michael Moore is editor of the St. Paul Union Advocate.

Photo: Courtesy of Workday Minnesota

GOP backs down on “right to work” in two states

Mark Gruenberg — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:30:00 -0400

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Fearing public reaction which could hurt their party at the polls next year - symbolized by a mass May Day protest on the state Capitol lawn in Columbus, Ohio - Republican state legislative leaders in Ohio and Missouri effectively stopped drives for so-called "right to work" laws in those legislatures.

But the fight isn't over yet, at least in Ohio. The Buckeye State's statewide tea party affiliate says it will gather signatures, facing a July deadline, to put "right to work" on the ballot this November.

Right to work (for less) is a longtime cause of business and its legislative handmaidens. Since the 2010 GOP mid-term election sweep, the radical right - led by the secretive, extremist American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and so-called tea party groups - have joined that cause.

Those interests aim to weaken and destroy workers and their unions by laws to let millions of workers be "free riders," taking advantage of union services, such as bargaining and workers' rights protections, without having to pay for them via dues. The point is to destroy unions by removing money.

Union leaders, members and activists call such legislation "right to work for less," referring to lower wages, lessened benefits and weak job security in "right to work" states.

"What we're seeing is more Senate Bill 5-type legislation, which is simply an attack on worker's rights and collective bargaining," Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga told reporters after the rally, describing the "right to work" schemes there.

ALEC and GOP Gov. John Kasich pushed SB5 two years ago. That law stripped all Ohio state and local workers of all collective bargaining rights. Labor and its allies petitioned SB5 to a referendum. Voters bounced SB5 in Nov. 2011, 61 percent to 39 percent.

That history led Ohio State Senate President Keith Faber, R, to turn thumbs down on right to work now. ""We have an ambitious agenda focused on job creation and economic recovery, and "right to work" legislation is not on that list," he said. In a statement, Kasich took no position on "right to work," but did not put it on his agenda, either.

"Right to work states have less health care security and less retirement security," said Burga. "All in all it's been devastating to the middle class and working families of those states."

"America's right-to-work states are the poorest, most unhealthy and undereducated states in the union. That is a fact," Joe Rugola, director of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees.

In Missouri, State Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R, said rank-and-file members of his caucus want to pass "right to work" and the GOP-run Missouri House plans to do so. But Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, would veto it and Dempsey says the GOP lacks the needed votes to override his move. So Dempsey's reaction was: "Why bother?"

"They (the state senators) also recognize that we have a Democratic governor who has said he'll veto the legislation and that we simply lack the votes to move it forward over his objections," Dempsey said.

Photo: With the memory of a statewide rebellion of voters they caused when they went after collective bargaining rights two years ago still fresh in their minds, the Ohio GOP appears to be backing down on its attempt to turn the state into a right to work (for less) state. DailyKos

Workers have right to union rep before taking drug test

Press Associates — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:14:00 -0400

LOS ANGELES - Unionized workers have the right to demand - and get -- the presence of their union's rep to defend them before agreeing to a company's drug or alcohol test, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge ruled.

On April 30, NLRB Judge Jeffrey Wedekind overturned an arbitrator's ruling that the Ralph's grocery chain legally fired Vittorio Razi, a longtime worker and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324 member at its Irvine, Calif., store.

Ralph's fired Razi in 2011 when he refused to take a drug test - which the union contract allows - without having the chance to consult with his union rep first. The arbitrator backed Ralph's. But Wedekind said the NLRB's prior Weingarten ruling, which says workers can demand and get their union rep's presence when facing possible discipline, controls the situation and backs Razi and the local.

Store Director Julie Henselman "called Razi to the office and told him he was going to be sent for a drug test based on the behavior he had exhibited," Wedekind wrote. "Razi responded he did not do drugs, was insulted by the accusation, and would not take such a test. Henselman told Razi his refusal to take the test would be grounds for immediate suspension and termination because it would constitute both insubordination and an automatic positive test result.

"Razi at that point said he wanted to contact a union representative. Henselman responded Razi did not have the right to have a union representative present, but permitted him to try and contact one. Razi then went downstairs and attempted to call his union representative, Linda Martinez. However, he was unable to reach her."

Ralph's fired Razi after he still refused to go. The union took the case to the NLRB's regional office, citing Weingarten, and Wedekind sided with the union and Razi.

"The arbitrator clearly erred in finding that Razi did not have a right" under labor law "to consult with a union representative before submitting to the drug test," he wrote. "The employer's 'request'" to Razi to take the drug test "was coupled with a threat of termination for refusing."

Photo: Ralph's Supermarket in Los Angeles has been told that it must allow a worker who it wants to drug test to see his or her rep first. Wikipedia

GOP could move to cripple Labor Board

John Wojcik — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:58:00 -0400

The GOP may try to permanently cripple the government's ability to protect workers rights when the Senate begins consideration May 16 of President Obama's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

The AFL-CIO called an emergency press conference May 14 to draw attention to what Richard Trumka, its president is describing as an "immediate crisis" for America's workers.

If Senate Republicans block the administration's nominations the board will be rendered inoperable once a current member's term expires in August.

The five-member board, created when the National Labor Relations Act went into effect in the 1930's, is responsible for enforcing labor law protections, including the right to unionize. It must have a quorum of at least three members in order to issue decisions and enforce workers' rights.

The board currently has the bare minimum quorum of three but it only has even that bare minimum because of President Obama's recess appointments to the board. The recess appointments have been jeopardized by what Trumka called yesterday "a Circuit Court gone wild." In January the District of Columbia Circuit Court deemed the recess appointments unconstitutional.

Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, said that Republican refusal to agree to the president's nominees is a serious matter for all workers, not just union members.

"This is not what democracy looks like," declared Cohen in a telephone interview. "This is not about unions, this is about working people. The bottom line is that for 80 million private-sector workers, the NLRB is the only agency that protects their rights."

Making that same point at the press conference earlier, Trumka introduced Marcus Hedger, a worker fired three years ago from his job as a pressman at a print shop in Niles, Ill.

Hedger, who was elected shop steward for his Teamsters union local in 2003, said that three years ago, during negotiations over a contract, his boss warned him that the company was getting "fed up" with the union. Hedger was fired and the NLRB ruled that he was fired improperly, ordering the company to put him back on the job.

Because appointments to the NLRB have been held up by the GOP, the union has been unable to secure enforcement of that original ruling and Hedger is still without his job. "It is not fair," Hedger said. "As a result of this I could not pay my mortgage and I lost my home. It's just not right that they would cripple an agency designed to protect our rights. We pay taxes and we are a part of this country, aren't we?"

The hearings that begin tomorrow are being run by the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions. Trumka said President Obama has sent "a full bipartisan slate" for Senators to review.

The full slate includes two Democrats currently serving under recess appointments. Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. Two of the President's total of five nominees are Republicans, three are Democrats. When a Republican is president the breakdown is three Republicans and two Democrats.

Labor and its allies say they are not exaggerating when they claim the GOP wants to render the board inoperable. Sen. Lindsey Grahan, R., S.C., said, in 2011, that "an inoperable NLRB would be progress."

Right wingers, Graham included, were infuriated by the board siding with unionized workers in a case involving the Boeing Company in 2011. They have also expressed opposition to many board rulings including one that required corporations to hang posters informing workers of their rights under the law.

It was in response to a question concerning the D.C. Circuit Cout's recent overturning of that poster rule that Trumka made his reference to a "court gone wild. Even there, you see the Republican handiwork," he said. "They have held up the President's court nominations too. If we had a full and balanced Circuit Court perhaps we wouldn't be getting all these one-sided rulings against workers."

Democrats worry that the Republicans may use the recess appointment issue to try to scuttle the board this week. They point to some public statements by GOP senators that they say indicate intent to harm the NLRB.

"As the Senate considers the nominees, the two individuals who were unconstitutionally appointed (Block and Griffin) should leave," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R., Tenn., said last month.

Cohen has said that all public statements aside, "they (the GOP) stand for nothing except no board."

Trumka said at the press conference yesterday, "It's up to the Senate now to do the right thing, to act fast and confirm the president's full slate."

He tied action on the NLRB to the economy by adding, "The less the board works, the more America's economy falls out of whack, as we see today with record inequality and a shrinking middle class."

Photo: Radiolabour.net

Today in labor history: Western Federation of Miners founded

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Wed, 15 May 2013 20:58:00 -0400

The Western Federation of Miners was founded on this day in 1893 by "Big Bill" Haywood. The new union merged several previous miners' unions that had represented workers from Butte, Montana; Coeur a'Alene, Idaho; Colorado; South Dakota; and Utah. The name of the organization would eventually change to the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers in 1916.

William "Big Bill" Haywood would go on to become a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World, and was involved in important labor battles such as the Colorado Labor Wars in 1903 and 1904, and the Lawrence Textile Strike in 1912.

Haywood defined the Western Federation's stance against capitalism, from the viewpoint of the workers, when he stated, "The mine owners did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy, all the gold belonged to them!"

Part of the Federation's history was revisited in the 1954 film Salt of the Earth, directed by Herbert J. Biberman, which portrayed a year-and-a-half-long strike by New Mexico zinc miners who belonged to that union.

Photo: The Lawrence textile strike of 1912. Marxists.org

Iraqi unions still repressed

Press Associates — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:11:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - Nine years after the Bush government invaded Iraq and overthrew dictator Saddam Hussein, Iraqi unions are still repressed and toiling under the former ruler's labor law, a veteran U.S. unionist who recently toured there says.

Gene Bruskin, a former organizer for U.S. unions and co-chair of U.S. Labor Against The War, added that Iraqi union leaders face arrest for standing up to the government there. Union headquarters are trashed and other forms of repression, starting with Saddam's law itself, still exist.

He backed his comments on May 7 with videos shot during his trip, with another U.S. Labor Against The War leader, to the southern Iraqi port of Basra for a conference of organizations of civil society. The videos are available on USLAW's website.

U.S. Labor Against The War convinced the AFL-CIO in 2005 to break with U.S. foreign policy for the first time ever and denounce the Iraq War. It has continued to support Iraqi unionists. Bruskin noted that after the U.S. takeover in Iraq, other Hussein-era laws were repealed, but not the labor law.

That law bans unionizing in state-owned and controlled industries, including oil, which effectively cover 80 percent of Iraqi workers, he told a group of activists in D.C.

"We certainly believe the Iraqis will get the best labor law in the Middle East, if we back them up," Bruskin told the D.C. group.

Bruskin said, "there's a tremendous amount of hope in the resistance" to anti-worker actions by current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He also said al-Maliki lacks credibility with many Iraqis, since he was "among the self-interested group" of exile leaders "who were put in power because they played ball with the U.S."

Iraqis overall, including the labor leaders and provincial sheikhs whom he met, generally welcomed Hussein's overthrow, Bruskin said. But the predominant view was, "Thank you for throwing him out. Now please leave." But the U.S. didn't, until now.

The Iraqi labor movement was able to come out from the underground it toiled in during Hussein's rule, Bruskin said. But with Iraqi labor law barring organizing and unionizing in most of the Iraqi economy, the unionists have had to turn to other methods to win their struggles. "What's Inspiring is the vibrancy of the labor movement," he said.

"They have walkouts, they have strikes, they have sit-ins, they have demonstrations - and they win.

"In one example, thousands of workers walked out, demanding the management throw the general manager of a petroleum plant out, because he was repressive and abusive." The management capitulated and the workers marched back in. In another petroleum plant case, a walkout saved 3,000 jobs, Bruskin said.

But the repression continues from al-Maliki's government, he warned. In the latest case, which U.S. Labor Against The War is publicizing, the state's Oil Ministry lodged a criminal complaint against oil workers union President Hassan Juma'a Awad. It claimed he was responsible for oil workers' strikes and threatened him with thousands of dollars in fines and up to five years in jail.

"Persecution of union leaders for exercising rights promised by Iraq's constitution and protected under international treaty must not be allowed to stand unchallenged," a flyer from U.S. Labor Against The War adds. Its website includes a solidarity petition.

"They're asking for our solidarity, and you can never underestimate the incredible power of the genuine solidarity they have, being literally in the belly of the beast," facing both al-Maliki and the U.S. government in back of him, Bruskin said.

Those two entities also want to denationalize Iraq's oil industry, he noted. Bush wanted U.S. oil companies to get control, and Democratic President Barack Obama tried to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that would have included that goal, Bruskin said. But the elected Iraqi parliament rebelled and no agreement was signed.

"The only thing standing against denationalization of the oil industry is the oil workers," which is why Awad faces trial, he said. But the Iraqi government has a weak case, Bruskin said. It's scheduled the opening hearing of the trial five times - and postponed it each time.

Photo: Hassan Juma'a Awad

Today in labor history: Freedom Riders attacked in Alabama

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:22:00 -0400

On May 14, 1961, Freedom Riders were brutally attacked by violent, well-armed and organized mobs of Klansmen and other terrorists in Anniston and Birmingham, Ala. The vicious beatings and a firebombing of the Anniston-bound bus by the Ku Klux Klan had the support of local law enforcement and politicians. Before the Trailways bus pulled into the Birmingham terminal, "Bull" Connor and his police department "with the Ku Klux Klan; when the bus arrives at the terminal, the mob will have 15 minutes to burn, bomb, kill and maim without police intervention or arrests. Freedom Rider James Peck and others are severely injured in the riot that follows.

"Eventually, the original CORE Freedom Riders are transported to the Birmingham airport, in hopes of flying to their original destination, New Orleans. The Kennedy Administration dispatches John Seigenthaler, assistant to the attorney general, to Birmingham to ensure the safe departure of the Riders. Seigenthaler is able to secure a flight for the Riders, and a plane transports them to New Orleans. "

Earlier in the day, the seven Freedom Riders on a Greyhound bus bound for Anniston were terrorized by Klansmen while on the bus, when they arrived at the terminal, and after they departed.

The racist thugs smashed windows, slashed tires and threatened the Riders before local police escorted the bus out of town. The bus, followed by a long line of cars and trucks and six miles out of town, was forced to pull over. The mob resumed its attack, throwing a firebomb through a broken window on the bus. The Riders barely escape but many suffered smoke inhalation. One rider, Hank Thomas, after stumbling off the bus with lungs full of smoke was met by a Ku Kluxer and beaten with a baseball bat, leaving the student barely conscious.

In a harrowing account of the day, Raymond Arsenault describes the Klan's terrorism and the Riders' courage in "Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice," excerpted on NPR's website here: http://www.npr.org/2006/01/12/5149667/get-on-the-bus-the-freedom-riders-of-1961

During the Anniston attack, "[o]ne little girl, twelve-year-old Janie Miller, supplied the choking victims with water, filling and refilling a five-gallon bucket while braving the insults and taunts of Klansmen. Later ostracized and threatened for this act of kindness, she and her family found it impossible to remain in Anniston in the aftermath of the bus bombing."

If that wasn't enough, the riders had more trouble getting to the hospital for treatment and receiving it once there. The ambulance driver refused to carry any African American riders. Arsenault writes, "After a few moments of awkward silence, the white Riders, already loaded into the ambulance, began to exit, insisting they could not leave their black friends behind. [Eventually]...the driver's resolve weakened, and before long the integrated band was on its way to Anniston Memorial Hospital."

Once in the hospital the riders were faced with racist administrators and a mob threatening to burn the hospital down. While mobs prepared to attack Freedom Riders in Birmingham, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth organized a convoy of deacons to drive to Anniston and rescue the riders. As they walked to the cars, rider "Buck Johnson later recalled. 'Some of them had clubs. There were some deputies too. You couldn't tell the deputies from the Ku Klux.'"

Photo: The Greyhound bus that once carried seven Freedom Riders to Anniston, Ala., burns after a terrorist Klansman had thrown a firebomb into a window of the bus (AP).

AFL-CIO: Penalize Bangladesh until it protects workers

Mark Gruenberg — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:29:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - The AFL-CIO is demanding the U.S. government yank trade preferences from Bangladesh until that South Asian nation really shows a commitment to protecting its workers.

And U.S. retailers who benefit from Bangladesh's horrifying working conditions and extremely low labor costs must sign a fire and building safety code that features rigorous inspections and worker participation, Trumka added on May 8.

Trumka added the federation's voice to the outrage over the fatal fire and collapse of the multi-story Rana Plaza garment factory building just over two weeks ago. Despite warnings of unsafe conditions from onsite supervisors, owners of the garment-making firms within the building ordered workers to stay on the job there - and padlocked the doors to make sure they didn't get out.

The catastrophe has killed more than 1,100 workers and ranks among the worst industrial disasters, in fatalities, in world history. It didn't have to happen, Trumka adds.

"We call on the U.S. government to immediately withdraw, suspend, or limit Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) benefits for Bangladesh until it fulfills its most basic duties to workers," he said. The federation filed a GSP petition against Bangladeshi conditions in 2007, but the GOP Bush government ignored it.

"Suspending trade benefits is a crucial mechanism to pressure the Bangladeshi government to take clear and concrete actions to afford workers their internationally recognized worker rights. Clearly, the pace of progress has been inadequate to date," Trumka explained.

Retailers and consumers have a responsibility, too, "for finding a sustainable solution to the lax conditions and weak workplace protections," he added. U.S. and Western European retail chains sell 80% of all Bangladeshi-produced clothes.

"Major brands and retailers...made millions from high profit margins based on low wages and dangerous conditions. We call on the retailers not to leave Bangladesh, but to take an active role in improving conditions by pressuring the government to implement reforms and by negotiating with workers and local employers," said Trumka.

And consumers "must insist that retailers, brands, investors, and our governments use their power to promote sustainable development and shared prosperity for workers in Bangladesh who produce our clothes," Trumka added.

Photo: Bangladeshi garment workers protest the collapse of an eight-storey building that housed several garment factories with poor safety standards, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, April 26. (AP Photo)

Today in labor history: May 13 a busy day !

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:00 -0400

In 1893 on this date the Western Federation of Miners was formed in Butte, Montana. They organized the hard rock miners of the Rocky Mountain states into a labor union deemed radical by most mine owners and investors. The WFM gained a reputation for strikes and militant action.

In 1909, the Canadian government established its Department of Labour. (The law creating a U.S. Department of Labor was signed by President William H. Taft on March 4, 1913.)

In 1913 some 10,000 dock workers, led by the IWW, went on strike in Philadelphia. Local 8, a branch of Philadelphia longshoremen, had the IWW's largest contingent of African Americans.

May 13, 1980 was the day when Douglas Fraser, then president of the United Auto Workers, was named to the Chrysler Board of Directors. He thus became the first union representative ever to sit on the board of a major U.S. corporation.

Fraser argued to union members that they would have to make concessions if Chrysler were not to go bankrupt in 1979 and partly because of those concessions was able to convince Congress to provide $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees enabling the company to avoid bankruptcy. He negotiated wage cuts of $3 an hour and waived restrictions on layoffs, allowing the company to drop 50,000 jobs -half of its workforce.

Many deeply criticized Fraser's 1979 negotiations, arguing that they set off a wave of concessionary bargaining among automobile manufacturers which then spread into steel, mining, trucking, meatpacking, airlines and rubber.

Ironically, Fraser was seen as socially progressive, having been a strong backer of the civil rights movement, equality for minorities and women and a supporter of national health insurance.

On May 13, 1998, yellow cab drivers went on strike in New York City. It was a one-day strike to protest proposed new regulations. Thousands of drivers walked out of their cabs and onto picket lines in a labor action that rocked city, state and federal officials. "City officials were stunned by the strike's success," wrote the New York Times the day after.

It wasn't until 2011 that the National Taxi Workers Alliance (NTWA), based in New York, became the latest affiliate union of the AFL-CIO, and the first group to receive an organizing committee charter from America's largest labor organization in a half-century. The members of NTWA have done groundbreaking work in unifying taxi workers, increasing drivers' take-home pay and building a structure to provide the taxi workers access to health care.

Fast food wages equal “junk food money”

John Rummel — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:41:00 -0400

DETROIT - Friday was a day few will forget.

Starting at 6:00 a.m. and ending late in the afternoon, up to 400 fast food workers, making a $7.40 minimum wage, walked off their jobs at fast food outlets across the city here. Along with their allies from the labor, faith and social justice community, they held large rallies at McDonald's, Popeye's, Wendy's, Long John Silver's and Burger King supporting the new "D15" campaign calling for a $15.00 livable wage. (Article continues after video.)

In front of the McDonald's on West Grand Boulevard a huge crowd marched and spilled into the street. Cars passing by honked continuously to show support.

Twenty one year old Tequila Van Horn has worked at McDonald's for three years. She makes 7.40 an hour. "I work hard under tough conditions. I should get paid. You can't do nothing in life on $7.40."

Pastor W.J. Rideout said I'm here in support of fast food workers because they need a wage that allows them to support their families. "These corporations are making billions; they should pay their workers more."

McDonald's made $5.46 billion in profits over last five years, a 27 percent increase.

Across the Detroit metro area 53,000 people are employed in the fast growing, fast food industry. Two thirds are women and their average age is 28.

"Seven dollars and forty cents is junk food money. You have to fight for what is right," said Van Horn.

Video: Demonstrators rally in front of the McDonald's on West Grand Boulevard in Detroit (PW/April Smith).

Photo: Detroit fast food workers stand together, May 10, for better wages (courtesy of Jackie Dick).

Appeals court tosses NLRB’s workers rights poster rule

Mark Gruenberg — Mon, 13 May 2013 19:14:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - In yet another victory for big business handed down by GOP-named judges, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tossed the National Labor Relations Board's rule ordering employers to put up posters advising workers of their rights - including their rights to join unions.

The NLRB had no immediate comment, a spokesman said, but is considering whether to appeal the decision to the full D.C. Circuit Court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the ruling "radical" and "absurd."

The judges' ruling in the workers' rights poster case is the second major defeat in five months for the NLRB in the D.C. court, often called the second-most-powerful court in the nation, because it rules on the legality of agency decisions.

The prior loss was when the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB - and the decisions they voted on - are illegal. That leaves the board without a quorum to act and could bring it to a halt.

The latest decision is also a defeat for unions championing the rule, which features a poster repeating the section of the National Labor Relations Act giving workers the right to form and join unions, or not. It also lists other NLRA protections.

Appellate Judge A. Raymond Randolph said the NLRB should never have tried proposing the rule, much less writing it. "The board's action departs from its historic practice. From its inception in 1935, the board has exhibited a 'negative attitude' towards setting down principles in rulemaking, rather than adjudication," he said.

The judges also slammed the NLRB's rule as too broad. "Although section 8(c)" of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which rewrote labor law, "precludes the board from finding non-coercive employer speech to be an unfair labor practice, or evidence of an unfair labor practice, the board's rule does both," Randolph's ruling says.

The GOP-run 80^th Congress passed the GOP-drafted Taft-Hartley, essentially gutting the National Labor Relations Act, over Democratic President Harry S Truman's veto, in 1947. But the judges went beyond the NLRB's specific rule in their decision.

"We are not faced with a regulation forbidding employers from disseminating information someone else has created," they declare. "Instead, the board's rule requires employers to disseminate such information, upon pain of being held to have committed an unfair labor practice.

"That difference hardly ends the matter. The right to disseminate another's speech necessarily includes the right to decide not to disseminate it," the judges said.

"1^st Amendment law acknowledges this apparent truth: 'All speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid.'"

Predictably, the National Association of Manufacturers, which sued the NLRB over the poster rule, crowed in victory. Trumka said the "radical" decision endangers not just worker rights but all sorts of federal protections for citizens.

"Republican judges of the D.C. Circuit continue to wreak havoc on workers' rights. After attempting to render the NLRB inoperable, the D.C. Circuit once again undermined workers' rights, this time by striking down a common-sense rule requiring employers to inform workers of their rights under federal labor law," he said.

"In today's workplace, employers are required to display posters explaining wage and hour rights, health and safety and discrimination laws, even emergency escape routes. The ruling suggests courts should strike down hundreds of notice requirements, not only those that inform workers about their rights and warn them of hazards, but also those on cigarette packages, in home mortgages and many other areas.

"The court's twisted logic finds that 'freedom of speech' precludes the government from requiring employers to provide certain information to employees. This is absurd: When workers know their rights, the laws work as intended," Trumka said.

Photo: The appeals court ruling makes it optional for employers to inform workers of their rights on public bulletin board spaces on the job. NPR.org

Analysts say bill would extend labor law protection to immigrants

Mark Gruenberg — Mon, 13 May 2013 19:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - A close reading of the draft comprehensive immigration reform bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee began to work on starting on May 9, discloses provisions to bring undocumented workers under labor law coverage.

And while it does not baldly name the labor laws that would immediately cover undocumented workers in the U.S., an immigration law specialist who concentrates on workers rights tells Press Associates Union News Service that such coverage is there.

Not only that, adds Yvette Cho of the National Employment Law Project, but the draft Senate bill also overturns a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision that denies net back pay to undocumented workers whom employers illegally fire for union activities.

Whether labor law covers the undocumented workers is important to all workers, documented or not. That's because, as unions repeatedly discover, venal, vicious, law-breaking employers manipulate the presence of the undocumented in two ways.

First, employers exploit the undocumented by hiring them at low wages and impossible conditions, secure in the knowledge the workers can't fight back for fear of deportation. Second, firms threaten other workers with firing and being replaced by the undocumented unless the other workers agree to cuts in wages and working conditions.

So bringing the undocumented workers under labor law coverage is a key goal of unions campaigning for workers' rights under the comprehensive immigration reform.

Not only would such a guarantee let unions try to organize the workers, but it would also deter companies from calling in federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to deport undocumented workers who dare to talk union or raise questions.

The key provisions that imply that labor laws - including the National Labor Relations Act, wage and hour laws and the Occupational Safety and Health Act - cover the undocumented workers are Sections 2101 and 2102 of the draft Senate bill. Section 2101 lists rights available, and what rights are not, to undocumented workers once they become "registered provisional immigrants," the first step on the legal road.

"A noncitizen granted registered provisional immigrant status under this section shall be considered lawfully present in the United States for all purposes while such noncitizen remains in such status, except that the noncitizen is not entitled to the premium assistance tax credit" in the Affordable Care Act to help pay for health care coverage, or any other benefits of the 2010 health care law, it says.

That leaves all other legal protections open for the undocumented workers, once they register, including labor law protections.

"Undocumented workers are under the protection of labor laws, and it fixes Hoffman Estates, too," says Cho, referring to the High Court ruling denying the workers net back pay.

"There isn't any particular phrasing that says when the undocumented workers shall be covered by, and employers subjected to, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the National Labor Relations Act," she continues. "But there is sufficient jurisprudence out there saying that they're protected."

An undocumented worker who enters the immigration legalization process would be eligible for "all rights and remedies provided under any federal, state, or local law relating to workplace rights," section 2102 of the Senate's draft bill adds.

And the effective date of such protections is when the immigration overhaul would be signed into law, Cho adds.

Section 2102 continues: "A court may not prohibit an employee from pursuing other causes of action" - lawsuits - "giving rise to liability, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, on account of (and) including but not limited to back pay, are available to an employee despite" the "employee's status as an unauthorized alien, either during or after the period of employment by the employer, or the employer's or employee's failure to comply with the requirements" of the immigration overhaul law.

The Hoffman Estates ruling said the NLRB could find firms guilty of labor law-breaking when they illegally fired undocumented workers, but the agency couldn't levy the remedy - ordering the worker get net back pay - if the worker is undocumented.

Section 2102 also says that if the employer illegally fires the worker, citing the immigration law as the reason, "reinstatement shall be available" to the worker "who is authorized to work" in the U.S. or who "lost employment-authorized status due to the unlawful acts of the employer under this section."

There is at least one other section in the Senate-proposed draft that also apparently backs up workers' rights for the undocumented. It says that "records of a labor union, day labor center, or organization that assists workers in employment" are among the evidence an undocumented worker can present to show continuous work in the U.S.

Photo: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr (CC)

Administration brings GOP attacks on NLRB to Supreme Court

Press Associates — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:24:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Obama administration Justice Department formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the issue of whether the courts can legally strip federal agencies - notably the board - of their power to do anything, by ruling that interim "recess" appointments to run the agencies are almost always illegal.

In a brief filed with the justices, the Justice Department, acting for the NLRB, says Democratic President Barack Obama was within his constitutional rights to fill board member vacancies during a Senate recess, even if that recess is between days the Senate meets in the same session of Congress.

And the Justice Department also wants the court to decide whether the president can use his recess appointment power to fill ongoing vacancies in the executive branch and in regulatory agencies, such as the NLRB, or whether it's limited only to vacancies that start during recesses.

Left unsaid in the 138-page brief, filed April 25, is the real reason the NLRB seats, and other top posts, are vacant: Filibusters by the Senate GOP minority, trying to prevent the administration from doing its job, and to prevent the NLRB from functioning.

The case is important not just to workers and their allies, because the board governs labor-management relations. It's also important to defining how much power Obama, or any president, has to fill vacancies, to ensure the government runs.

All that was called into question in January by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C., often called the nation's second-highest court because it handles the vast majority of regulatory agency disputes, including labor law disputes.

And it was a labor law dispute, involving Noel Canning Corp., of Washington state, that led to the present mess.

Noel Canning refused to implement a contract it reached with Teamsters Local 760, and the board ruled that its refusal broke labor law. But when the firm appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit, it introduced a new argument to that 3-judge panel: That the NLRB itself couldn't rule on the case, because the board's makeup is illegal.

The firm argued that two "recess appointees" who signed the decision were illegally named. That left the board without a quorum to rule against the firm - or in anything else since the two recess appointees took their seats in January 2012.

The judges, all nominated by Republican presidents, agreed with the company.

Other circuit courts have upheld the president's recess appointments powers, which have been exercised, in much the same way, starting with George Washington, the Justice Department and the NLRB told the justices. Changing the interpretation now would create a large mess, and not just in labor law, the brief tells the High Court.

"The Court of Appeals' decision would deny the president authority to fill vacant offices during intra-session recesses -- which account for much of the time the modern Senate is not in session -- and would further preclude him from filling many vacancies even during inter-session recesses," their brief adds.

"That decision repudiates understandings of the recess appointments clause that

have been maintained and relied on by the executive for most of the nation's history. The limitations imposed by the Court of Appeals would render many of the recess appointments since the Second World War unconstitutional.

"The decision also threatens a significant disruption of the federal government's operations -- including, most immediately, those of the National Labor Relations Board. The (court's) decision potentially calls into question every final decision of the board since Jan. 4, 2012. And, because many of the board's members have been recess-appointed during the past decade, it could also place earlier orders in jeopardy.

"The National Labor Relations Act places no time limit on petitions for review and allows such petitions to be brought in either a regional circuit (court) or the D.C. Circuit," the board and the Justice Department pointed out. "Thus, the potential effects of the decision are limited by neither time nor geography.

"Moreover, those effects can also be expected to extend to a wider range of federal agencies and offices...If the decision is allowed to stand, almost any federal officer who received a recess appointment during an intra-session recess, or who was appointed to fill a vacancy that did not first arise during the recess in which the appointment was made, could have his actions challenged on the ground that his appointment was unconstitutional."

The Justice Department and the NLRB asked the justices to take the Noel Canning case "to remove the resulting constitutional cloud over the acts of past and present recess appointees, and to restore the president's capacity to fill vacant offices temporarily when the Senate is unavailable to give its advice and consent" to presidential nominations.

Photo: PW/Flickr

Today in labor history: Labor of thousands completes first transcontinental railroad

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:58:00 -0400

On May 10, 1869, thanks to an army of thousands of Chinese and Irish immigrants, who laid 2,000 miles of track, the nation's first transcontinental railway line was finished by the joining of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific lines at Promontory Point, Utah.

On this day, the presidents of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads met at Promontory Point and hammered in a ceremonial last spike to connect their rail lines. This made transcontinental rail travel possible for the first time in U.S. history. Eastern- or western-bound travelers no longer needed to take the long and dangerous journey by wagon train.

In a prime example of "corporate welfare," one year into the Civil War, Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Act (1862), guaranteeing public land grants and loans to the two railroad companies it chose to build the transcontinental line, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. Earlier, in 1853, Congress had appropriated funds to survey possible routes. With the money in hand, the two railroads began work in 1866, heading west from Omaha, Neb., and east from Sacramento, Calif., forging a northern route across the country. In their eagerness for land, the two lines built right past each other, and the final meeting place had to be renegotiated.

Harsh winters, staggering summer heat, raids by Indians angered that their land was being taken, and the lawless, rough-and-tumble conditions of newly settled western towns made conditions for the Union Pacific laborers - mainly Civil War veterans of Irish descent - miserable. The overwhelmingly immigrant Chinese work force of the Central Pacific likewise suffered, including enduring brutal 12-hour work days laying tracks over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. On more than one occasion, whole crews were lost to avalanches, or accidents with explosives would leave several dead.

For all the adversity they suffered, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific workers finished the railroad by 1869, ahead of schedule. Journeys that had taken months by wagon train or weeks by boat now took only days. Their work had an immediate impact: The years following the construction of the railway were years of rapid growth and expansion for the United States, due in large part to the speed and ease of travel that the railroad provided.

Photo: Chinese railroad workers in the snow. Wikimedia Commons

Ohio Republicans back off on “right-to-work” after big protests

Bruce Bostick — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:05:00 -0400

COLUMBUS, Ohio - On May 1 (May Day), right-wing Republicans introduced in the state legislature three versions of anti-labor "right-to work" legislation - one directed at private industry, another directed at public workers, and a third that would immediately place that legislation on the ballot for referendum. Right-to-work legislation is now being pushed by right wing, pro-corporate legislators nationally in order to break the power of unions, which now only represent 9 percent of workers in private industry in the U.S. Right-to-work would bar unions from collecting dues from all represented workers, while still requiring unions to represent all workers. It would reverse previous union elections won by unions in which the entire unit had elected to be represented by unions, breaking the unity needed by labor to have any power.

The Ohio AFL-CIO immediately swung into action on the first bill with a huge lobbying effort, involving hundreds of workers at the Capitol for the federation's legislative conference, The union members buttonholed their lawmakers, demanding "No" votes from them.

"Over 170 workers organized 54 meetings with their legislators and came away with 25 signed statements from them that they would vote 'No' on any 'right to work' legislation," according to AFL-CIO Legislative Director Matt Smith.

A quickly called militant rally against the bills sprang up by noon at the Capitol, with hundreds of union workers and supporters chanting "NO on right to work, YES on workers' rights!" By the end of the workday, hundreds more workers were marching around the Capitol, as part of this year's May Day mobilization. They also demanded an end to attacks on workers. The labor federation announced that that it, and We Are Ohio, the huge alliance which led the fight that overwhelmingly defeated last year's attempt to disenfranchise public union workers in Ohio, had set up dozens of meeting across Ohio to mobilize workers, families and supporters against the right-to-work legislation.

Addressing the angry crowd, Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga said:

"Those backing so-called right-to-work say it's about individual freedom, but passing legislation that gives more power to corporations to ship our jobs overseas, takes away protections for whistleblowers, reduces pay, benefits and retiree security from all doesn't sound like 'freedom' for workers. This is nothing but a corporate power grab that will hurt not only workers, but entire communities and hurt our fragile economy. This is just SB 5 recycled, and Ohioans overwhelmingly said 'NO' to that last year!"

Republican Gov. John Kasich and leading GOP forces at the Statehouse moved rapidly to kill all three RTW bills "for now," Rep. Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) announced on May 3. Clearly they are showing that they want no part of another huge fight for workers' rights in Ohio, at least this year. However Ohio union activists generally feel that the Republican majority is only postponing this battle until next year's lame-duck session, when it will be re-introduced.

"We need to be on our guard," said Smith, "Republican governors in both Michigan and Indiana publicly stated that they wouldn't support right-to-work legislation, right before they did support it, and jammed it through in those states."

Photo: John Rummel/PW