Labor » peoplesworld

AFL-CIO: Republicans voted almost 100% wrong on labor issues

Mark Gruenberg — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:41:00 -0500

WASHINGTON - The party cleavage was stark in the GOP-run House last year on AFL-CIO-selected key votes, with the GOP a sea of red "x" wrong votes on labor's issues, and Democrats racking up almost as many blue check mark "rights."

The split was especially stark in some ideologically polarized state delegations. For example, South Carolina's five Republicans each voted wrong on every single one of the 18 votes, while Rep. James Clyburn, a member of the House Democratic leadership, compiled an 18-0 "right" mark - the only leader to do so.

The partisan divide in the voting study reflects the House's attitude as a whole, where anti-labor legislation often made its way to the floor, and was supported by a solid phalanx of the Republican majority.

Overall, 137 House Republicans each went 0-18 on the AFL-CIO's key votes, while another 18 also never voted with labor, but missed votes here and there. And 17 more agreed with organized labor's stand only once on last year's key votes.

By contrast, 72 Democrats voted in agreement with labor's stands every time. Another 8 missed votes here and there but still never voted against the union stand.

The Democratic total would have doubled, had not 79 Democrats' only break with labor been on the Congressional Progressive Caucus' substitute budget resolution. That group included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the House's longest-tenured member. Another three opposed labor's stand on another lone vote on another issue.

There were occasional GOP deviations from the norm. They were led by Reps. Dave Reichert, R-Wash. (11-4, 3 absences), Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo. (11-6-1), Ilana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. (11-6-1), Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio (each at 11-7).

Just behind were Tim Johnson, R-Ill., Don Young, R-Alaska, Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., Michael Turner, R-Ohio, and Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., all at 10-8. LoBiondo and LaTourette co-chair the small House GOP Labor Caucus. Grimm represents Staten Island and Turner's old district included Dayton.

The worst Democrats were Reps. Dan Boren, D-Okla., who is retiring (11-7) and Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. (11-7), redistricted out of his seat by the GOP-run legislature.

Unions use the AFL-CIO figures as part of their evaluations when deciding, locally, whether to support or oppose an incumbent lawmaker. The Oregon AFL-CIO, however, has gone beyond the key votes to evaluate lawmakers on their committee votes and their advocacy - or opposition to - pro-worker positions at key points in the legislative process. It has also factored in the nature of each lawmaker's district.

The Senate voted in such lockstep in 2011 that only five individual votes could not be predicted by the senator's party, AFL-CIO data shows.

The federation used four key votes in 2011 to compile its Senate records. Local and state unions use its voting studies as one component in their endorsement process. Out of 400 votes - four for each of the 100 senators - only one each by Republicans Jim DeMint (S.C.), Rand Paul (Kent.) and Mike Lee (Utah) and Democrats Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) could not be predicted by their party affiliation.

The three Republicans all voted with the AFL-CIO and against a continuing resolution to fund the federal government at 2010 levels, last March 9. It was the Senate version of the House money bill for most of the federal government, with deep cuts for many domestic agencies and elimination of everything from money for Planned Parenthood to funds for the Joint Strike Fighter. It lost 44-56.

The AFL-CIO opposed that money bill because the cuts were too deep and too wide for programs people depend upon. Paul, DeMint, and Lee - the three Senate leaders of the tea party - opposed it because they wanted to cut even more.

Shaheen and Nelson parted company with the AFL-CIO when Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, tried to make it tougher for federal agencies to write rules governing various industries. She wanted to put the new hurdles in a small business bill. She got a majority of votes, 53-46, but needed 60 to overcome a filibuster and stick her amendment into the legislation. Forty-four Democrats and both independents voted against Snowe, while Shaheen and Nelson joined the GOP on the vote.

Photo: Rally for jobs, not cuts, Oct. 15, 2011, Washington, DC. PW

Washington governor brokered end to dispute on the docks

Michael Gutwig — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:20:00 -0500

PORTLAND, Ore. - A whirlwind week of negotiations Jan. 23-27 appears to have ended a yearlong dispute between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and EGT at the Port of Longview's new $200 million grain export facility.

On Jan. 23, Gov. Chris Gregoire, D-Wash., announced she had brokered a deal between the two parties that settled pending legal issues, unfair labor practice charges, and fines. Her announcement came a few hours before an administrative law judge was set to open hearings on unfair labor practice charges filed by the National Labor Relations Board against the ILWU for illegal picketing and other activities.

During the course of the year, ILWU blocked trains from delivering grain and members clashed with police, leading to several hundred arrests. In August, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting members of ILWU from mass picketing at the facility.

"I asked EGT and ILWU to come together in a good-faith effort to overcome their differences," Gregoire said in a press release. "Both parties should be commended for their willingness to work together and compromise. This framework reflects considerable effort to put the interests of the Longview community and the entire Columbia River basin first. I am confident an agreement can be reached that will satisfy both parties and allow the new grain terminal to become fully operational."

On Jan. 24, members of ILWU Local 21 ratified the settlement agreement. On Jan. 27, the Port of Longview's board of commissioners approved the settlement agreement before approving an amendment to its lease with EGT.

The ILWU protests centered on a decision by EGT to use an outside union contractor - instead of ILWU members - to staff the grain terminal. EGT sued, arguing that its lease agreement did not require it to hire longshore workers. The sides were awaiting a federal judge's ruling when the governor said a settlement was reached.

Gregoire's announcement surprised Operating Engineers Local 701, which represents workers at General Construction -- the contractor EGT hired to staff the grain terminal. Local 701 asserts that ILWU doesn't hold a jurisdictional claim to the work.

"We weren't notified of any secret negotiations," said Nelda Wilson, assistant to the business manager of Local 701. In fact, in October the union sent a letter to Gregoire and other politicians asking they not get involved.

"This is a pretty slippery slope having a governor intervene in a labor dispute," said Wilson, explaining workers have protections under the National Labor Relations Act, and union jurisdictional issues have remedies under the AFL-CIO constitution.

"Think about it: What if Washington had a Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin, who recently stripped public employees of collective bargaining rights) in the driver's seat? I think this is a very dangerous precedent to have set."

Wilson said employees of General Construction were laid off Jan. 23, the day of the governor's announcement.

In a written statement to the Longview Daily News, Local 701 Business Manager Mark Holliday said: "Local 701 members will continue to work for General Construction as we have done for almost 90 years, whether at the EGT facility or somewhere else. Our labor contract is with General Construction. We have never had, and still don't have, a relationship or contract with EGT."

The port's amended lease with EGT states the multinational company is no longer bound by the port's "working agreement" with ILWU. In exchange, EGT agreed ILWU will provide the labor for EGT's facility, and agreed to a union card-check procedure. If a majority of workers choose to be represented by Local 21, EGT and the union will open bargaining on a labor agreement for all land- and shipside operations.

According to the Longview Daily News and confirmed by ILWU, the settlement agreement with the port contains language that ILWU must request that all outside groups -- including other labor unions and the Occupy movement -- refrain from picketing at EGT. The Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Central Labor Council had called for mass pickets of the first incoming ship to load grain at the terminal.

The union can resume its picketing if collective bargaining breaks down.

Michael Gutwig is editor of the Northwest Labor Press.

House GOP blasts Obama NLRB appointments

Mark Gruenberg — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:43:00 -0500

WASHINGTON - Raising the specter of legal chaos in labor-management relations, the ruling Republicans on the highly partisan House Education and the Workforce Committee blasted President Obama's three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

And to bolster their case at the Feb. 7 hearing, they called in a hand-picked past Reagan administration Justice Department official to testify that Obama couldn't name the new board members as recess appointees because the Senate wasn't in recess.

At issue is Obama's Jan. 4 seating of Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin - a longtime union general counsel - and Republican Terence Flynn to three vacant NLRB seats. Without the new members, the five-person board could not function.

Obama appointed them while the Senate was out of session for three days. The Senate has been coming back for pro forma sessions, usually with one senator calling the meeting to order and another moving to adjourn, and taking at most a few minutes. But technically, the Senate was in session, said Charles Cooper, who served as the Reagan administration's assistant attorney general for legal counsel.

"The president's recess appointments had nothing to do with whether the Senate was available to act and everything to do with the Senate's unwillingness to confirm the president's nominees," Cooper told the representatives, whose committee has no power over NLRB appointees - except to complain.

"As with every branch of our government, there is 'hydraulic pressure' within the executive 'to exceed the outer limits of its power,'" Cooper said, quoting a Reagan-era Supreme Court decision. "Regardless of whether the president has sought to exceed his power for good or ill, it is Congress' constitutional responsibility to resist him."

Cooper's comments gave the GOP license to blast Obama, and they did so. With cooperation of Cooper and two of the other witnesses, the Republicans said if courts rule in the future that Obama's recess appointments were invalid, then all the board rulings would be invalid, too. That could cause chaos in management-labor relations, they said.

Left unsaid by the GOP was the fact that without the recess appointees, the NLRB would have only two members and could not function anyway - an objective of the right-wing majority, especially on the committee, and their business backers.

The lone Democratic-called witness, Susan Davis, current chief counsel for AFTRA and a counsel for the New York State Nurses Association, reminded the lawmakers the NLRB needs a quorum to function, and needs the three new members.

"The NLRB, without a full complement of board members, would be incapable, not only of protecting workers' rights, but of administering the federal labor laws that protect workers, employers, and the public interest," said Davis who has also represented Teamsters, Laborers, Airline Pilots, Steelworkers, Letter Carriers, Autoworkers, and other unionists.

"The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of workers, whether they are in a union or not, to join together in order to have a voice in their workplace. The act protects workers against employer discrimination or retaliation if they opt to exercise these and other rights, and it also guarantees workers the right to refrain from engaging in union activities," she said.

But the law needs a functioning NLRB to enforce it, she added. "The president's inability to make additional board appointments would have prevented the board from enforcing the act and ensuring the worker protections it has guaranteed for more than 75 years.

"To deny the board the ability to function by disabling the president's ability to appoint board members would eviscerate workers' rights" under the act. "Not only would workers lose rights and protections they desperately need, but both workers and employers would lose the guidance and decision-making finality that a board decision brings," Davis warned.

The GOP ignored the practical impact Davis cited. It didn't want the Obama nominees - even if one of them is a Republican - on the board at all. Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., dragging out the usual party rhetoric, said Obama acted "to further Big Labor's agenda."

He called Obama's NLRB appointments "extraordinary action that stretches the limits of his office and undermines our all-important system of checks and balances. I realize that in many ways the appointment process is broken. However, no president should endorse an unconstitutional scheme in order to address a political problem.

"Thanks to the president's action, three scarcely known individuals are now empowered to dramatically transform our nation's workforce," Kline complained. "The highly controversial nature of the appointments guarantees the rules and decisions the new board members adopt will be constitutionally suspect and legally challenged.

"Even the president's own Justice Department, in what I would characterize as an understatement, noted that the issues surrounding these appointments 'create some litigation risk.' Every action taken by the board will be tainted," he contended.

Chicago Teachers Union: Black teachers, students most affected by school closings

Teresa Albano — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:02:00 -0500

CHICAGO - Fed up with discrimination, the Chicago Teachers Union filed a complaint Feb. 9 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charging the Board of Education's mass teacher layoffs last year unfairly impacted African American teachers.

The union's attorney, Robin Potter, told the media that the school board "is illegally terminating and laying off African American teachers who are highly qualified and excellent teachers... It is a systematic effort to rid the Chicago Public Schools of tenured teachers who are African American."

Black teachers make up 29 percent of all CPS teachers, but were 43 percent of all those laid off last year, the union says. White teachers are 47 percent of the total but were 36 percent of the layoffs.

"To make it right they have to stop these layoffs, they have to step back and they have to put these good teachers back in the schools," Potter said.

The EEOC complaint comes at a time when the CPS and Mayor Rahm Emanuel are pushing through education policies that education historian Diane Ravitch calls "corporate school reform." The city and board are enacting mass school closings and privatizing them by bringing in well-connected charter school operators.

Today, the Chicago Teachers Union was at Cook County Courthouse filing for an injunction to stop the board's Feb. 22 approval to close or "turn around" 17 additional neighborhood schools.

Corporate school reform has a distinctive racist edge, the CTU charges. The Chicago Public Schools board is violating Illinois law because the "proposed actions disproportionately target African American student populations," the union said in filing for the injunction.

Powerful corporate forces are circling around the nation's third largest school district to implement their version of reform.

For example, the University of Chicago's Consortium on Chicago School Research released today preliminary findings that purportedly show a slight uptick in reading and math, after four years, among elementary schools that followed some "turnaround" model. There were no improvements among any high schools, the report said.

But even the progress proclaimed is open for debate since it was minimal.

"The Board of Ed needs to be responsible to understand these programs are not working," said Julie Woestehoff, executive director of Parents United for Responsible Education, reported the Chicago Tribune. "In order to do something devastating to the community, the results need to be clear and compelling. And these results are not."

According to the Sun Times, "Consortium researchers rushed the analysis into print, releasing only an 'overview of findings' and not the final report, because they said they wanted to inform the current debate over Chicago's turnarounds."

CPS jumped on the findings to promote a controversial charter school company, Academy for Urban School Leadership, which was part of the consortium's study, and is slated to get the majority of "turnaround" contracts if approved Feb. 22.

"I would say the report shows there's promising and encouraging data about our turnaround models in particular and about AUSL as an example,'' said CPS Chief Education Officer Noemi Donoso. Donoso has her main experience in charter schools and "turnaround" models, according to CPS website.*

AUSL is a national charter school operator started by Chicago venture capitalist Martin Koldyke. The mayor, too, has a close relationship to AUSL including the fact that the principal of AUSL's Bethune School of Excellence was a co-chair of Emanuel's mayoral campaign.

Also in the corporate-political cabal is the Chicago Board of Trade, whose president, David Vitale, is the head of the Chicago Board of Education. Vitale had been on the board of directors of AUSL.

CPS CEO Jean-Claude Brizzard, who came from Rochester, N.Y. school district, has extensive ties to the charter school/corporate reform world as well. Brizard is a graduate of Broad Superintendents Academy, funded by Los Angeles billionaire Eli Broad.The Broad foundation, along with Bill Gates and the Walton Family of Wal-Mart fame, make up the unholy trinity of mulit-billionaire philanthropists (some call vulture philanthropists) attempting to re-make public education in their corporate image.

In addition to the battle around school reform, teachers and the board entered contract talks last month. The union's contract expires June 30.

*In a previous version of this post, CPS leaders Donoso and Brizzard were incorrectly identified as former employees of AUSL. We regret the error.

Photo: Teachers, parents and students demonstrate for good schools and against mass closings on Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, Jan. 16, 2012. (Chicago Teachers Union)

Missouri Republicans press slew of anti-immigrant bills

By Tony Pecinovsky — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:36:00 -0500

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The Republican-dominated Missouri Legislature is currently debating anti-immigrant bills targeting students, non-English-speaking drivers and the federal government.

Senate Bill 590 would require school administrators to report the immigration status of students and their parents, forcing local schools to assume the role of immigration control, a task of the federal government.

Vanessa Crawford, executive director of the Missouri Immigrant and Refugee Advocates (MIRA) coalition, said, "We can learn a lot about this type of legislation and its potential impact on Missouri residents by how it has impacted Alabama."

"Parents took their kids out of school. Thousands of kids just didn't show up the day after the law was passed in Alabama," Crawford said. "It's a very scary and confusing situation for immigrant families."

"Schools and families are supposed to work together to create a positive, welcoming environment for students," she added. "This type of legislation turns teachers into ICE agents."

Additionally, SB 590 would require local police to ask for proof of papers as a routine part of their jobs, and arrest anyone suspected of being undocumented. Any documented immigrant not carrying their immigration papers could also be charged with a Class C misdemeanor.

Opponents of the legislation warn that it will create a climate of fear and racism, encourage racial profiling, cost taxpayers millions of dollars in legal battles, have a chilling effect on enrollment of children in public schools, and force teachers and school administrators to single out students due to their perceived immigration status.

According to Crawford, this legislation will also make victims of abuse "much less likely to cooperate with the police."

For example, she said, "A victim of domestic violence may choose to not call the police, as the police will have to ascertain the victim's immigration status instead of addressing the domestic violence issue."

A second bill, HB 1186, would require the state of Missouri to only offer driver's license exams in English without an interpreter. Currently, Missouri offers driver's exams in a dozen languages, and allows applicants to pay for their own state-approved interpreter if they speak a language other than the 12 offered.

HB 1186 would only impact documented immigrants, as Missouri and federal law already prohibits undocumented immigrants from obtaining a driver's license.

Critics of this legislation argue that more than 150 countries, including the United States, recognize an International Driving Permit without fluency in the language of that country. This legislation would go against national and internationally agreed-upon standards, they say.

Other states with more ethnically diverse populations have rejected English-only driver's exams. A report by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that "fluency in the English language sufficient to take and pass a written exam in English is not indicative of the applicant's ability to drive safely in the public roadways."

A third anti-immigrant bill in the Missouri Legislature, SB 473, would require the state auditor's office to determine the cost of illegal immigration to Missouri taxpayers and then sue the federal government for that money.

Crawford calls this legislation "especially problematic," saying it would promote "increased anti-immigrant sentiment based on a completely false assumption" that immigrants "don't pay in."

"Immigrants, like everybody else, pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and contribute to our economy on a daily basis," Crawford said.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2010 Missouri had between 35,000 and 75,000 undocumented immigrants. They make up less than 1 percent of Missouri's population of 6 million.

Similar laws passed in Alabama are costing that state nearly $11 billion annually. According to a University of Alabama study, an estimated 40,000 to 80,000 undocumented immigrants have left Alabama, resulting in a $2.3 billion to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama's GDP. Additionally, the report found that Alabama will lose between $56.7 billion and 264.5 million in reduced state income and sales taxes, and lose between $20 million and $93.1 million in local sales taxes.

While the Missouri state government is still debating the wisdom of these laws, some local governments have already passed anti-immigrant, racist laws by popular vote.

For example, in Springfield, voters just passed Question 1, a law requiring local businesses to verify that new hires are legally eligible to work in the U.S. by checking their status in the controversial E-Verify database.

E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility. But those records are filled with discrepancies

The Greene County Sheriff's Office (Springfield is in Greene County) says that of the 20,000 people who passed through police custody in 2011, only 49 people were held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Opponents of the new law say it is an unenforceable, unfunded mandate, and its constitutionality will be tested in court, forcing Springfield taxpayers to to foot the bill for the extreme, anti-immigrant agenda.

A similar law has been introduced in the Missouri House.

"Regardless of the intent of these laws, we know that their impact will be racial," Crawford said.

Union leaders say ”right to work” will boomerang in Indiana

Mark Gruenberg — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:18:00 -0500

INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana, thanks to its GOP legislature and flip-flopping GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels, became the nation's 23rd "Right to Work" state - and the first in the North - on Feb. 1. Union leaders blasted the legislation, and predicted it'll boomerang at the ballot box this fall.

The law, jammed through the legislature on party-line votes, deprives unions of the right to mandate collection of dues, or even "fair share" fees in contracts with employers. That will let thousands of "free riders" take advantage of unions' services without paying one thin dime for them.

The practical effect is to rob unions of money needed to represent workers. But right-to-work laws have been a cause of the radical Right for more than 60 years - as a way to destroy unions and reduce their ability to gain better livelihoods for workers.

The radical right, its business backers, and its GOP handmaidens push right to work as part of their nationwide war on workers. Minnesota is also a right-to-work target.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka led the unionists in saying right to work will hurt Indiana workers - who will remember in November.

Right to work "reflects an extreme partisan agenda that is all about payback to corporate donors, instead of creating good jobs for working families and fostering a middle-class economy," he said. "'Right to work' policies don't create jobs. Study after study has shown they reduce wages, benefits, and safety for all working people -- the last thing anyone needs in this economy.

"Working people are energized and will remember who stood with them and who stood with the one percent on Election Day," he concluded.

Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott said her state tried right to work once before, from 1957-65 and "it was an utter failure." She predicted a repeat and added Hoosiers will exact retribution when they vote in November.

"I am reminded of the saying, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,' and it seems especially fitting today," she said. "Hoosiers have been here before" and after the prior failure, voters "rose up, changed elected officials and repealed it. It appears we are headed there again.

"Sadly, passage not only means that workers' rights and ability to collectively bargain will be significantly weakened, it means strong-arm tactics, misinformation, and big money have won at the Indiana statehouse," Guyott added, reminding voters that Daniels and the GOP denied workers from testifying against it and barred people from the state capitol during passage.

Steelworkers District 7 Director Jim Robinson declared the out-of-state special interests pushing right-to-work won this fight, "but we'll win the war."

"The General Assembly set Indiana on a course that will lead to lower wages, less safety on the job and more -- and we need to ensure our locals are as strong as possible to ensure they don't get their way," added Robinson. "This is just one part of the larger attack on working families in our country. We didn't win this fight, but we'll win the war. Hoosiers won't settle for a government where corporate-backed lawmakers do the bidding of the one percent. Our state is better than that; our country is better than that. Our fight doesn't end here - not by a long shot."

"Let's be clear about the fundamental underpinnings of this issue," said AFL-CIO Building Trades Department President Mark Ayers. "Contrary to what right-to-work proponents would have the public believe, this was not about creating an inviting economic atmosphere that would attract businesses to Indiana. Rather, this effort -- just like recent efforts to limit collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and Ohio -- was first and foremost about political power."

After citing an Indiana building trades report showing the negative impact of right-to-work laws elsewhere, Ayers said "misinformation and special interest money may have carried the day today, but the fight is far from over." Indiana workers and those elsewhere "will not be silenced. Indeed, the sleeping giant that is the American middle class has been awakened.

Teachers President Randi Weingarten added that right to work "will increase economic pain and uncertainty" for Indiana workers, at the wrong time, in a recession.

Daniels and the GOP lawmakers responded to "mean-spirited and irresponsible" corporate attacks on workers, Weingarten said.

"This debate crystallized who is on the side of working people. In the legislature, every Democratic senator and nine courageous Republican senators voted 'no,' plus the House Democrats earlier walked out in an attempt to stop this harmful bill." Those lawmakers "demonstrated their willingness to stand up against this corporate-backed attack" on workers, she concluded.

Educators tell labor board: Restore our rights

Mark Gruenberg — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:55:00 -0500

NEW YORK - Some 1,800 graduate assistants and teaching assistants at New York University want their union rights - and their contract - back. And their delegation came to D.C., speaking for themselves and tens of thousands of other TAs nationwide, to demand that from the National Labor Relations Board.

Representatives of the students, members of UAW Local 2110, rode buses for 250 miles to the NLRB offices in Washington on Feb. 3, to deliver a letter asking the agency to quickly rule on the union's case for reinstatement at the institution.

"We have worked hard, been accountable to workplace procedures and rules, paid taxes on our earnings, and like other workers, supported our families and our communities," said delegation member Neil Myler, a Linguistics Department TA.

Because the NYU TAs work just like other workers, they should have the same rights to organize and bargain, added UAW Region 9A Director Julie Kushner, who led the delegation. "After almost two years, a decision should be put on the fast track so these workers can exercise their democratic right to form their union," she added.

The TAs and graduate assistants organized with the UAW more than a decade ago, won a recognition election and negotiated a first contract after that 2000 win, with the university. That pact expired in 2005. By then, an NLRB dominated by members named by anti-worker GOP President George W. Bush had ruled that TAs, graduate assistants, and research assistants were "students," and thus not covered by labor law. NYU, citing that ruling, refuses to recognize and bargain with the TAs and their union.

In May 2010, the students tried again, winning a ruling that at least they had the right to have their case heard on the local level. Last June, the agency's New York regional director said they had the right to organize and bargain, via their union, with NYU. But he delayed implementation of his ruling due to the Bush-era board's decision.

"We are asking the NLRB to give back what we should have by federal law: Democracy at work," said Rana Jaleel, a doctoral candidate in American Studies. "It has been a long road for us, and a decision is overdue."

"These academic workers are willing to get on a bus and deliver their message in person. That is what democracy looks like," said UAW President Bob King in a statement. "They represent an important part of our union membership and a vital movement infused with energy and determination. They deserve to have their fundamental rights restored."

Labor and business economists call “right to work” unworkable

John Wojcik — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:18:00 -0500

A pro-labor economist is saying that Republicans who think "right to work" laws will stimulate the economy in their states are dead wrong.

He says they are wrong, however, not just for the reasons given by unions - that the laws lower wages and depress the amount of money going into the local economy - but because the "free trade" laws now in place actually make even "right to work" states look less attractive to those who can profit more by outsourcing jobs.

Gordon Lafer, an economist at the University of Oregon's Labor Education and Research Center, told American Prospect's Abby Rappaport yesterday that while 23 states have right-to-work legislation, to adequately judge their impact one must examine states that became right-to-work states after the North American Free Trade Agreement became law.

"Anything before the impact of NAFTA started to be felt in the late '90's is meaningless in terms of what it can tell us," he says.

Lafer's argument, which is being accepted in more and more business circles and even by some Republicans, is that, because of free trade deals, firms outsource jobs to places where they can make things at a tiny fraction of what it would cost to in America. He says that even in the most anti-union state in the country there is still a minimum wage law, for example, that some greedy business owner will see as an impediment to his profits. "The wage difference that right-to-work makes is meaningless compared to the wage savings you can have leaving the country," Lafer said.

Last year, Lafer and fellow economist Sylvia Allegreto published a report for the Economic Policy Institute examining in detail what had happened in the ten years since Oklahoma passed a "right to work" law. Since it is the only state that has passed "right to work" since NAFTA, they say it gives a good picture of the effects of right to work laws in today's economy.

Their report shows that, rather than increasing the number of jobs, companies fell all over each other relocating out of Oklahoma.

And in high-tech industries and those service industries dependent on consumer spending in the local economy, as unions predicted, the Oklahoma law damaged growth rates.

At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahomans had manufacturing jobs. "It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody, including non-union workers," says Lafer about "right-to-work'" laws.

But it isn't only labor-backed economists who think "right to work" laws are unworkable.

"There are two problems with right-to work laws as simple solutions for our manufacturing woes: They aren't right and they don't work," wrote Ron Klain for Bloomberg News yesterday: "Such laws aren't right because they entitle a worker to all the benefits of a union-negotiated contract without paying dues. In other words, they grant a fee ride, aimed at undermining the desire of anyone to pay their fair share. Regardless of how you feel about unions, the unfairness of this legislation should offend you."

For some of Bloomberg's readers who might be too far removed from the experiences of workers to get the point, Klain used a metaphor: "Imagine you own a home in an exclusive community that provides a golf course, a clubhouse and other fine amenities. Now the legislature passes a "right to home freedom" law, which allows residents to enjoy all these great facilities and services, but gives them the 'freedom' from being 'coerced' into paying homeowner association dues.

"Should your neighbor be able to use the golf, pool and tennis facilities without paying a fair share? If free riders are allowed, would anyone continue to pay? Would the services continue to be available? That's the situation right to work creates for the workplace, except that instead of golf, pool and tennis, you can substitute fair wages, health care coverage, and safe working conditions."

Photo: Union workers protest Right to Work in Indianapolis. Darron Cummings/AP

Want to raise your pay? Join a union

Mark Gruenberg — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:13:00 -0500

Want to raise your pay? Prefer to get to and stay in the middle class? Then the most economically wise move you can make - especially if you're a woman, a minority-group member, or both - is to organize and join unions.

But you don't have to take our word for it. Just look at the annual data compiled by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The BLS data on the union difference accompany its annual report on union density in the U.S. Both are based on a survey of 60,000 households. And, of course, there may be errors in the data. But BLS says it's more than 90 percent confident its results would mimic those of the entire nation if it could it ask all 310 million of us its questions.

The differences are stark, and we'll spell them out. Ready for the numbers?

* In 2011, the median weekly income of all 125,187,000 workers was $756. That's the point where the workforce splits: Half above, half below. The median weekly income of all 14.8 million unionists was $938. That's 24 percent above the overall median and 29 percent above the $729 median weekly income for all non-union workers.

* The median weekly income of a male unionist - all eight million of them - was $982 last year. That's 18 percent above the 2011 median for all male workers ($832). That's one hundred and fifty bucks extra per week in your pocket, 52 weeks a year. It's also 23 percent above the median ($798) for non-union male workers.

* The median weekly income of women unionists - there were 6.9 million of them last year - was $879. That's 28.5 percent above the median for all woman workers ($684) and 34.6 percent above the median for non-union female workers ($653). In short, female union workers earned $4 for every $3 earned by their non-union sisters.

* There's still a "wage gap" between men and women, even among unionists, but it's a lot narrower than the gap between non-union men and women. The median weekly wage for union women is 89.5 percent of that of union men - and the median for union women is higher than the median wage for non-union men. The male-female wage gap for non-unionists? 81 percent. Want less pay discrimination on the job? Join its union.

* The median weekly income for African-American male workers was $653. For African-American male union workers it was $802, or 23 percent higher. If white men are the "yardstick" by which other workers' wages are measured, the gap becomes a chasm.

The typical white male worker - union and non-union combined - had a median weekly wage of $856 last year. The black male unionist earned 94 percent of that. The black male non-unionist earned $619 (72 percent). See what we mean by the union advantage?

* Now let's do the same drill for African-American women. Female union workers earned $744, or 87 percent of that white male's "yardstick." Non-union African-American women earned a median of $577 weekly, or 67 percent of the white male wage.

There's quite a difference between earning seven dollars for every eight earned by the most privileged group and earning two dollars for every three that the privileged earned.

* Want even more evidence? Let's run the same drill for Hispanic-named workers. Take a look at the white male median weekly wage figure again ($856). The Hispanic male unionist earned $859, or 100.4 percent of that. Yes, you read that right. The male Hispanic unionist earned more than the typical white male, if you combine union and non-union white men. But the Hispanic male non-unionist was far behind: $538 (63 percent). That's not a wage gap. It's an abyss: Just short of $16,700 a year.

Any male Hispanic worker would love to get a raise like that - and so would anyone else. And he can, if he organizes and joins the union. The median weekly wage for a Hispanic woman unionist was $743, or 87 percent of the white male's wage. Yes, there's still a wage gap, but not the yawning chasm you see between the median weekly wage of the white male and the Hispanic non-union woman worker. She earned $501 weekly - 58.5 percent of the white man's median weekly wage, and dead last among all the subgroups.

We could go on and on, about how unionists, white and non-white, are more likely to have employer-paid health insurance, pensions, etc., etc., but we don't think we need to belabor the point.

If you want to get ahead, if you want a middle-class family-supporting wage, your best ticket is to join the union.

Now go show this column to your non-union neighbors.

Photo: SEIU Local 1000 members joined a rally at the California State Capitol in Sacramento in solidarity with Wisconsin workers, February 28, 2011. Photo via SEIU.

Six months after lockout, workers stage 'back to work' action at American Crystal Sugar

Steve Share — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:33:00 -0500

EAST GRAND FORKS, Minn. - Union members reported for work Feb. 1 at American Crystal Sugar's East Grand Forks, Minn., factory. Rather than going inside to their jobs, however, they remained outside the plant gates, where they were locked out six months ago to the day - and instead hollered at scabs going inside the plant.

The East Grand Forks action was one of four similar demonstrations at American Crystal Sugar factory gates on Feb. 1-2 in Hillsboro and Drayton, N.D., and East Grand Forks and Moorhead, Minn.

The company locked out 1,300 workers on Aug. 1, 2011 when they voted down its contract proposal by a 90-10 percent margin .

The workers (members of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers) spent the days leading up to Feb. 1 in organizing "back to work" actions outside factory gates.

"We're just here today to show the company and the farmers and the community that we're ready to go back to work," said Scott Ripplinger, a 28-year company worker and an ion technician. He co-chairs the solidarity committee at East Grand Forks BCTGM Local 167G, Unit 264.

In East Grand Forks, about 30 union workers stood with signs outside the plant gates as scab workers drove cars inside. "Go back scabs, go back!" they shouted.

The union's action came two days after the latest federal mediation session between the company and BCTGM ended with American Crystal Sugar continuing to insist on its July 28, 2011 contract offer-which union members voted down 90-10 percent.

"It's hard to negotiate when only one side is negotiating," said Ken Lamberson, a boiler house foreman, 16-year company veteran, and assistant head steward and co-chair of the solidarity committee.

"We truly believe it's not about money; they're out to break the union," added Sonny Collison, vice president of the East Grand Forks BCTGM local. "It's hard to accept it," he said. "You thought you were part of the factory."

Almost every car and truck driving by on U.S. 2 past the factory honked in support of the workers. "We've got a lot of community support," said Collison.

The East Grand Forks workers also expressed a profound sense of betrayal by American Crystal Sugar.

"I work there. My dad works there. My brother works there. My sister works there," said Lamberson. "There are a lot of husband-wife couples who work there. A lot of dads and sons," he added.

Six months before the lock-out, Lamberson said, the company asked him and his family members who work at American Crystal Sugar to appear in a company video, 'The Chosen Field.' "The company came to us and asked us to do this video and talk about family, tradition, and moving up the ranks," he said.

And six months later they all were locked out.

Bonnie and Jay Holter are one of the married couples who work at American Crystal Sugar's East Grand Forks factory. The Arvilla, N.D., residents even met at work. Bonnie, an ion helper, has worked 28 years at the plant. Jay, an ion technician, has worked 29 years at the plant. They raised their family of six now-grown children on union wages from American Crystal Sugar.

"We've given the best we've got to this company and this is how we are treated," Jay Holter said. "It's probably only a year and a half ago the company gave us shirts that said, 'You're the best at what you do.'"

The workers outside the plant lined up and marched as far as possible toward the security guards at the factory gates. They chanted: "What do we want? A fair contract! When do we want it? Now!" Another chant: "What does Crystal Sugar have to hide? Dirty sugar made inside."

Still another chant: "Come on Crystal, play it straight. Sit down and negotiate." Another chant: "David Berg, rich and rude. We don't like your attitude." Berg is the Crystal Sugar CEO who a few weeks ago compared the union to a "cancerous tumor."

"This is just beyond believable," said Jan Bailey of Grand Forks, an ion tech who has worked 12 years at the company. "I can't understand why Crystal is doing what they're doing. They're saying one thing and doing another. Their actions are speaking for themselves. "I'm grateful my husband doesn't work here," she said.

Bailey added, "Even though my husband is employed, it's not enough. We've almost lost our house."

Bailey said she and her husband, long-time renters, purchased their first home in 2004. "We had a chance to buy a house," she said. "Nobody saw this coming. Why would you?" Now, she fears, their house will be going into foreclosure.

The couple is also no longer able to help out their children and grandchildren financially. "We're just barely taking care of ourselves," she said.

Despite the grim challenges locked-out workers face, they retain a sense of humor. As the rally wound down and workers began to move away from the plant gates, one man quipped: "On behalf of the band and myself, I hope we passed the audition." It was a quote from John Lennon and a Beatles' recording.

Back at the BCTGM office in Grand Forks, Debra Kostrzewski worked to coordinate another round of food drives to support locked-out workers. She has worked 23 years at the company and is a quality lab foreman at the East Grand Forks plant.

"Right now, we're trying to get by," she said. "I personally feel betrayed because I enjoy my job there and I want to go back even after all this, once this lockout is over and the union is back in-and we will be back in."

"People are fighting. They're going to stay strong. They're going to continue the fight," said Local 167G President John Riskey, a Minot, N.D. resident who began working at American Crystal Sugar in 1979.

American Crystal reported record profits in the year before the contract was up for renewal, workers noted. "We should have gotten a bonus instead of a lock-out," said Lynn Frederickson, a Drayton crane operator with 40 years at the company.

Instead, workers said the company offer includes 40 pages of concessions.

"It's about power. It's about them having the power for all decisions," union Vice President Brad Nelson, a Drayton plant worker, said. "They don't want a union contract in their way."

American Crystal Sugar planned for a lockout, workers said, even before they voted on the contract. Two weeks before August 1, workers said, the company told them to take their personal tools home.

"It hit home after 40 years of seeing your husband going to work and seeing the toolbox come home," said Mavis Keena of the Drayton plant. "To have somebody go and turn their back on you is very emotional."

"Right now, it looks like it's going to be a lot longer fight than we were hoping," Riskey said. "We need as unions to fight together to put a stop to this-stand strong."

Steve Share is editor of Minneapolis Labor Review. This story was distributed by Press Associates Inc.

Photo: John Stennes/AP

Communications workers endorse Obama

Mark Gruenberg — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:43:00 -0500

WASHINGTON (PAI) - The Communications Workers' executive board voted Jan. 31 to endorse President Obama for re-election this fall. CWA President Larry Cohen made the announcement just before introducing Vice President Joe Biden to the union's legislative-political conference in Washington.

The endorsement was not unexpected. In conference calls among union activists every two weeks and online since last summer, the CWA had asked its members to cast electronic ballots in the presidential race. The results were 66 percent for Obama, 20 percent for an unnamed Republican nominee, and 14 percent neutral or undecided, Communications Director Candice Johnson said. She did not have raw vote totals.

CWA becomes the latest large union to commit to Obama's re-election. Others include the United Food and Commercial Workers and Service Employees International Union. Steelworkers President Leo Gerard endorsed Obama in his keynote address to his union's convention last year.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council, which includes both Cohen and Gerard, is expected to issue a formal presidential endorsement by its March meeting in Florida. SEIU and UFCW are Change To Win unions. That organization has yet to endorse.

CWA's statement praised Obama but also took hard shots at the current GOP leader, former Massachusetts Governor and Bain Capital CEO Mitt Romney.

"On the issues that matter most to working people, President Obama is on our side," the statement said. "We need leaders who recognize that income inequality and wage declines are serious problems that must be solved," as Obama does, it added.

By contrast, the GOP candidates, including Romney, "made clear working families should be on their own" on a whole host of issues. And Romney, while heading Bain, "parachuted in" to take over firms, take big profits "and put average Americans out of work." CWA reminded listeners that Romney recently said, "I like to fire people."

The bad GOP record "is especially true" on workers' rights, the union stated. "No Republican candidate stood up for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Judge Romney by the company he keeps: New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie, who set out to strip CWA public workers of their bargaining rights, is one of Romney's biggest supporters."

CWA, in closing, promised to work to re-elect Obama and "members of Congress who support the growing movement to restore democracy in the U.S." Cohen spent much of the legislative conference pounding the podium against what he called "corpocracy" - the takeover of the U.S. political process by unlimited, secret corporate campaign contributions, legalized by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010.

Biden: GOP doesn’t understand middle class

Mark Gruenberg — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:14:00 -0500

WASHINGTON - As far as Joe Biden is concerned, the Republican Party "doesn't understand the middle class."

In pointed words uttered in an often-conversational tone, the vice president told more than 700 unionists at the Communications Workers' Legislative-Political Conference that the woolly thinking on the other side of the partisan aisle applies to both its congressional leaders and its presidential hopefuls.

Biden's Feb. 2 speech highlighted the final day of the three-day meeting in D.C. CWAers gathered from around the nation to lobby lawmakers for four key causes.

The four are: Reversing the impact of the Supreme Court's two-year-old "corporations are people" ruling that let loose the flood of campaign cash; a financial transactions tax to force Wall Street to help pay for recovery from the Great Recession; union voting rights at airlines and railroads, and; taxing firms that move call centers offshore while giving a tax break to firms that bring call center jobs back.

Biden repeated the administration's stand for a 20 percent tax credit for all firms - not just call centers - that return jobs from overseas, coupled with withdrawal of tax deductions for moving jobs out of the U.S. He did not discuss the other three ideas.

Most of his speech alternated between jabs at GOP leaders - whom Biden called smart, even sometimes likable, but completely misguided - and defense of the Obama administration's actions. Biden said he would talk "about how to make the state of our unions stronger," but never elaborated.

Biden's defense came just after CWA President Larry Cohen said the union's executive board endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket for re-election this fall. Obama received 66 percent of rank-and-file votes in electronic and phone balloting.

That led to a repeated chant of "Four more years!" when Cohen escorted Biden to the podium. Then the vice president got started, repeatedly interrupted by applause.

"I don't think those other guys understand what a great struggle it is to get into the middle class, but that families have seen that shot evaporate," he said.

"Being in the middle class is not a matter of income. It's where you can own your own home, in a decent neighborhood, make sure your kids do good in school so you can send them off to community college, a trade school, or college, where you can take care of your parents" if necessary, "and where you can put enough away" for retirement "so your kids won't have to take care of you."

GOP presidential hopefuls - specifically former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital CEO Mitt Romney and ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich - "don't get it," Biden said. Neither does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kent.

"That bargain has been broken," Biden said of the middle class description he provided. "The Republicans don't have an idea" of "how to fix" the problem, shown by rising U.S. productivity and declining median income during the Bush years, he added.

"They're not bad guys, but they don't realize there's a problem," Biden explained.

Biden extended his criticism to Republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Indiana, who have shoved anti-worker measures through their GOP-run legislatures. "Instead of realizing the bargain has been broken, the Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, Rick Scotts, and the Mitch Danielses go out and look for scapegoats - the unions," Biden declared. Walker governs Wisconsin; Kasich runs Ohio, Scott heads Florida, and Daniels signed a law on Feb. 1 making Indiana a right-to-work state.

Republican stands "aren't gaffes," as sometimes portrayed, Biden warned. Republicans, for once, are open "about their beliefs" against workers and unions.

The GOP also must respond to Obama's record of pulling the nation out of the recession, withdrawing troops from Iraq, setting a permanent policy, and starting the withdrawal from Afghanistan and rescuing major enterprises, the vice president said.

"We inherited a country where the economy was in free fall, with four million jobs lost before we came in and another four million lost before we could get the first major pieces of our program in place. Now, in 22 months, we've created three million jobs.

"The auto industry was on the brink of liquidation. Now GM is number one again, the company has paid back their federal loans and I just spoke to the chairman of Ford, who said they're investing $16 billion in new plants - in the U.S." That got another big cheer.

"The best comparison I can think of is that Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive," Biden said, to another cheer. "This is a metaphor for a lot more."

The nation would eventually recognize the GOP's hostility to the middle class, the vice president predicted, and re-elect the Obama-Biden ticket. But the veep admitted one other reason would mark the difference between his boss and the Republican presidential nominee. Quoting the late Boston Mayor Kevin White, Biden said: "Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the Alternative."

Photo: "Biden shakes hands with a student after speaking at Central Bucks High School West in Doylestown, P.A." Alex Brandon/AP Photos

GOP forces anti-labor provisions into transport bills

John Wojcik — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:38:00 -0500

Unions are mobilizing this week to fight anti-labor provisions the Republicans have inserted into major transportation bills. The GOP is pushing its agenda, labor unions say, by inserting anti-worker measures into a variety of bills.

The main targets of the right wing efforts are bills designed to guarantee air safety and security and to create thousands of jobs in construction, revamping of highways, and the rebuilding and improvement of the nation's airports.

Some 19 unions this week issued a statement demanding passage of a "clean" bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. That bill is just one of the three bills anti labor lawmakers in the House re-wrote this week.

Behind closed doors even Democratic Senators agreed to changes in rules concerning union recognition and decertification on airlines and railroads that the labor movement is very unhappy about.

That rewrite, an attempt to end a fight over union recognition votes at airlines and railroads, ended up leaving workers and their unions with the short end of the stick.

The House GOP, doing the bidding of Delta Airline lobbyists, tried this week to re-impose a rule requiring unions to get 50 percent plus one of the entire eligible pool of workers to achieve recognition, with non-voters counted as "no" votes. Right now, a majority of those voting is sufficient for recognition.

In return for allowing unions to win recognition by just a simple majority of ballots cast, Senate Democrats yielded to the anti-worker House GOP and agreed that unions must get election recognition cards from 50 percent plus one of all workers in the pool before they can get a recognition vote. In the case of a runoff election management gets a second chance, under the "compromise," to overturn the original decision by the majority of workers that they want union representation. A "no union" option can be inserted onto the runoff ballot.

"An aviation safety and security bill is no place to impose unrelated and controversial labor provisions that will ultimately harm both airline and railroad workers," the 19 union leaders say in their statement. "The proposed Railway Labor Act changes would drastically rewrite a statute crafted by labor-management cooperation that has not been changed for over 75 years without the agreement of both employer and employee representatives."

"Airline and rail workers would suffer big losses because you could jettison contracts, cut collective bargaining rights and place legal hurdles in the way of workers trying to gain a voice at work," said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, by phone. Cohen, whose union represents airline attendants was one of the 19 signing the statement. He characterized the concession by Senate Democrats as "a sellout."

The GOP run House is scheduled to vote on the FAA bill Feb. 3 and the Senate is scheduled to vote on Feb. 6.

The new House GOP-adjusted version of another bill, the highway mass transit bill, is not only anti-union but actually anti-public transportation, according to the Amalgamated Transit Union.

The House Transportation Committee did its damage to the highway mass transit bill this morning, the union's president said.

"The two year Senate highway bill is fine," said ATU President Larry Hanley, "but the 5-year Hose GOP bill recalls Reagan era anti-transit policy."

"The two bills (the House and Senate versions) are a lesson in contrast," Hanley said. "The House Republican bill would effectively coerce cash strapped governments into privatizing their transit systems. It is an early Valentine to foreign national corporations who operate U.S. transit systems and who would reap a financial bonanza."

The Senate version improves passenger safety and security and lets transit systems develop a well trained workforce, according to Hanley. He also said he liked the portions of the Senate bill that allow large transit systems to use federal dollars not just to keep their operations going but also to buy needed equipment.

Failure to meet the needs of mass transit systems is not the only objection unions and others have to the House version. They note that the GOP version also includes extraneous issues that have nothing to do with highways and mass transit, among them approval for oil drilling in the Arctic and building the Keystone XL pipeline.

A third GOP initiative in the House this week that labor opposes was a move to slip into the highway construction bill a clause that would allow extra-long tractor-trailers, weighing up to 97,000 pounds, to travel on all U.S. highways. Unions say the measure would end up killing workers and endangering public safety.

Highway safety advocates have already joined Teamster President James Hoffa in condemning the Republican attempt to allow triple tractor-trailers on the highways.

"Once again, we have the trucking lobby in line with the Republicans in pursuit of profits while pushing safety aside," Hoffa said at a press conference yesterday. He said the trailers are the "equivalent of railway trains on the roads" and that "with larger and larger trucks trying to enter our highways on ramps built for smaller trucks, the probability of crashes increases."

Photo: Workers install seats in new terminal at the Sacramento International Airport. The $1 billion terminal, which opened in October 2011, created 2,400 jobs during the 2 1/2 year construction project. It was designed to expand the airport's capacity to 16 million passengers a year. Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Worker-friendly senator to unveil jobs plan

Mark Gruenberg — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:03:00 -0500

WASHINGTON (PAI) - Senate Labor Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, will roll out an extensive package of legislation within the next few weeks - everything from infrastructure improvements to parts of the Employee Free Choice Act - to try to rebuild the middle class.

Declaring, "We need a percolate-up economy, not a trickle-down economy," the veteran lawmaker outlined his Rebuild America Act to the Communications Workers' legislative-political conference on Feb. 1.

"It is the function of government to help create good jobs," Harkin emphasized.

Harkin got rousing cheers, and several standing ovations, from the hundreds of unionists who packed a large meeting room at Washington's unionized Omni Shoreham Hotel. But the reception he'll get on Capitol Hill will be much cooler.

That's because the House's ruling Republicans oppose almost anything to help workers. Harkin admitted their opposition, blaming the Tea Party's influence. And even if Harkin could get his proposals out of his committee, the Senate GOP would talk them to death via a filibuster on the floor.

Harkin recognized that obstruction, too: He praised CWA's stand to kill the filibuster, and promised to renew that fight at the start of the 113th Congress in 2013. "That's the first thing we've got to do," he vowed.

Had it not been for the Republican Scott Brown's win in a Massachusetts special Senate election, "we would have had enough votes to pass part of EFCA," by overcoming a GOP filibuster against labor's top cause, Harkin stated. Besides EFCA, to help level the playing field between workers and bosses in union organizing drives and in bargaining first contracts, his legislation includes:

• Investing in infrastructure and manufacturing. "We're driving on Eisenhower's highways," he said, referring to the Interstate Highway System. "And our kids are going to Roosevelt's schools," referring to buildings erected during the New Deal. Meanwhile competing nations - he cited China - "are investing in infrastructure while we're falling behind." Harkin did not put a dollar figure on his infrastructure and factory investments.

• Redoing job training curricula in the nation's schools, with federal prodding, to train students for jobs in expanding occupations. Harkin indicated businesses would be partners in that effort, by working with colleges, universities, and secondary schools on what jobs are open and what skills they need.

•"Empowering workers, which means raising the minimum wage," and indexing it to inflation afterwards. It also calls for "expanding access to overtime pay," reversing a Bush-era ruling defining millions of workers as professionals ineligible for overtime.

• Legislate improvements to retirement security, particularly "rebuilding the defined benefits pension system," available to less than one-fifth of the workforce. Now, he said, two-fifths of all workers have 401(k) accounts, troubled by the stock market, and with not enough to retire upon. The rest have nothing but Social Security.

"And it means ensuring that all workers have the right to organize, and that employers will face real penalties for violating the workers' rights to form unions," Harkin declared, to a big roar.

The Employee Free Choice Act, which never made it out of Harkin's committee in the Democratic-run 111th Congress, (he couldn't line up 60 votes to overcome the filibuster threat) imposed larger fines for employer labor law-breaking. It also formally legalized card check recognition of unions, cut down on time available for employers' delays and mandated binding arbitration of first contracts if the two sides could not agree to a pact after a set time (usually 120 days).

Employers must be "forced to negotiate in good faith," Harkin said, recalling - again - how young hotshot financers bought the Delavan, Iowa, engine plant where his late brother, who was disabled, worked. They broke the United Auto Workers at the plant via a lockout and "striker replacements." Harkin's brother, at age 54, had to take a job "as a janitor cleaning latrines" and "never recovered" from the shock.

Harkin was not specific on how he would rebuild the pensions. He also proposes to strengthen Social Security "so its benefits would be a greater replacement share" of a worker's pre-retirement income, but again did not say how.

Other measures:

• Enact family-friendly legislation. One measure would mandate seven days of paid sick leave for full-time workers in all but the smallest companies. The U.S. is one of the few nations worldwide without paid sick leave. Harkin and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are the prime congressional sponsors of paid sick leave legislation.

• Pay for his legislative package by a financial transactions tax, a key cause of the National Nurses Union and - at the legislative conference - the Communications Workers. The tax, of three cents per $100 in transactions, would bring in $350 billion over a decade and force Wall Street to help pay for repairing the damage it caused through the Great Recession. "Even the chief of Vanguard Investments" favors the tax, Harkin said.

"You feed the tree at the roots," he concluded. "That's the fight to restore the middle class."

“Right to Work” for less passes, Indiana’s workers refuse to give up

Special to PeoplesWorld.org — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:13:00 -0500

Big Business prevailed at the Indiana Statehouse, when the Indiana state Senate this morning passed a "right to work" (for less) bill; the vote was 28 to 22. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels will sign, dealing a major blow to working families statewide.

Many working people gathered in Indianapolis over the past few weeks to stand up against this legislation. Daniels and House Speaker Brian Bosma (R), however, chose to ignore the voices of thousands, many of whom were barred from entering the Statehouse to testify before the committees considering the bill.

While Indiana workers being affected were ignored by the state's Republicans, out-of-state special interest groups were given the chance to spew unsubstantiated claims, false promises, and empty rhetoric, instead of independent, factual assessments. Legislators never asked for proof about claims that passage of the right to work for less law would bring jobs to the state.

Workers and their unions across the state saw this as an affront to the legislative traditions and values of the state, as those in power pushed this bill through as quickly as possible to avoid scrutiny, and to please Big Business.

The bill's passage, remarked State AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott, "means that strong arm tactics, misinformation, and big money have won" today. Right to work (for less) will take Indianans on "a path that will lead to lower wages for all working Hoosiers, less safety at work, and less dignity and security in old age or ill health. Indiana's elected officials have given the wrong answer to the most important question of this generation."

But Guyott referenced a similar piece of legislation passed in 1957 - which, after voters turned out the GOP majority in the following election cycle, was repealed in 1965. And as working men and women did then, she said, this generation of Hoosiers will also rise up, join forces, and defeat the Republican anti-worker agenda once more.

Photo: Protesters gathered at the Indiana state capitol on Jan. 28 to protest the right-to-work legislation. Eric Gay/AP Photos

Thousands join picket lines at Kaiser Permanente’s California hospitals

Marilyn Bechtel — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:04:00 -0500

OAKLAND, Calif. - Thousands of workers at Kaiser Permanente facilities across California marched on picket lines Jan. 31.

Some 4,000 mental health and optical workers, members of the National Union of Health Workers, called the one-day strike to protest what they say are staffing levels too low to provide timely services and adequate follow-up for patients, as well as demands for takeaways from workers' pensions and health care. The NUHW has been in contract negotiations with Kaiser since 2010.

Registered nurses, members of the California Nurses Association, and technical workers who belong to Operating Engineers Local 39, joined them in a sympathy strike, and some members of other Kaiser unions also joined the picketing.

In a study issued late last year, the union found mental health workers reporting that their patients often have first appointments that are group orientation sessions rather than real evaluations. They then often wait four weeks or more for return appointments, even though state law says patients shouldn't have to wait more than 10 days.

On the Oakland picket line, Kathy Donohue, a CNA member and a registered nurse at Kaiser for 15 years, said the lack of mental health staffing and the resulting inability to schedule and follow up on cases promptly, "is bringing about heartbreaking stories." One of her colleagues has a son who has struggled with substance abuse, she said, and when he couldn't be seen promptly, he ended up on a ventilator.

Mental health and optical workers also face takeaway attempts in the drawn-out contract talks.

Pointing to "record profits" that the union says total $5.6 billion in the last three years, Mary Anne Beach, a Ph.D. psychologist and NUHW shop steward at Kaiser's Antioch facility, said Kaiser "is really capitalizing on the economy." Despite the profits, she said, Kaiser is trying to replace workers' pensions with a 5 percent contribution to a 401k, wants workers to pay more for health care, and seeks to cut retiree health coverage.

Speaking by phone from the picket line in Antioch, she added, "We want to send a message that the cuts are not acceptable. Kaiser is in a very profitable position and they shouldn't be taking advantage."

Asked why members of his union were on the line in Oakland, though they aren't now in contract talks, Engineers Local 39 member Noah Chapman said Kaiser had "tried the same kinds of takeaways with us. We need to stand together so Kaiser will realize we are all serious."

A few blocks away, a smaller group of pickets stood in front of another Kaiser building. Among them were two women, members of the Service Employees International Union, which did not join the sympathy strike.

One, calling attention to the $9 million in compensation Kaiser's CEO George Halvorson took away in 2010, observed, "If even half of that were devoted to patient care, that care could be hugely improved."

Kaiser's medical facilities stayed open during the strike, relying on replacement workers and nurse managers to fill in.

Union membership up slightly, despite attacks

John Wojcik — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:29:00 -0500

Membership in unions increased by 49,000 from 2010 to 2011, including 15.000 new members in the 16 to 24-year-old range, according to U.S. Department of Labor figures released Jan. 27.

The increase of 110,000 in the private sector was offset by a loss of 61,000 in the public sector, making the overall rate of union membership in 2011 basically unchanged from 2010 at 11.8 percent. There are 14.8 million American workers who are members of unions.

The percentage of public sector workers in unions is 37 percent, up from 36.2 percent a year earlier while private sector union membership remains at 6.9 percent.

Most of the gains in union membership happened in construction, health care, retail, metals trades, hospitals, transportation and warehousing.

While no one is celebrating the figures as a rebirth of the American labor movement, "the bottom line," according to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, "is that despite an unprecedented volley of partisan political attacks on workers' rights and the continuing insecurity of the economic crisis, union membership increased slightly last year. Working men and women want to come together to improve their lives."

Union membership is also seen as much more important than just making conditions better on the job for union members.

"The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of the middle class and the way to do this is to expand the number of working Americans in unions," said Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor in one of his recent newspaper columns. "Working families aren't asking for a handout or a bailout, but they need and deserve to have a fair share of the prosperity they are creating. They need a level playing field and the freedom to bargain for a better life," Reich added.

To that end unions mounted, over the last several years, and Republicans have successfully blocked passage of the Employee Free Choice Act which would require employers to recognize unions as soon as a majority of workers sign authorization cards. Workers would be able to avoid the long, drawn-out company-controlled elections during which employers routinely harass, intimidate and even fire union backers.

When the Obama administration and the National Labor Relations Board stepped in to try to do administratively, some of the things the Employee Free Choice Act would have done legislatively, Republicans moved on several fronts to try to cripple the labor board itself.

In December the NLRB put in new rules to shorten the time that lapses between filing for a union election and the date of the election itself and rules that limit employer challenges that can be mounted to delay an election. The GOP retaliated by vowing to block any Obama appointment to the board, a move that would have crippled it because, due to resignations, it would no longer have the necessary quorum to function.

The president then filled the three vacancies by making recess appointments, thus bypassing the Senate where a Republican minority had vowed to block the appointments.

And the battle continues, now with Mark Pearce, the new chairman of the board, vowing to push for yet another set of rules changes that would make it still easier for unions to organize.

One change Pearce wants to make is to require businesses to hand over lists of employee phone numbers and emails to union leaders before an election. He would also like to allow electronic filings for union elections and quicker timetables for a number of other procedures.

The recess appointments, including that of Pearce himself, raised an outcry from Republicans and anti-union groups who said the appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not technically in recess when they were made.

If the new rules are approved they will go into effect on April 30 and effectively speed up the process for holding union elections, one of the major goals of those who backed the stalled Employee Free Choice Act.

Auto jobs grow despite Republican opposition

John Rummel — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:05:00 -0500

DETROIT - "The American auto industry is back," President Obama said in his State of the Union address. And in fact, though very far below previous levels of employment, the U.S. domestic auto industry has rebounded from the disaster of 2008 when General Motors and Chrysler were on the verge of going under, jeopardizing thousands of jobs, until the president helped mobilize support for government-guaranteed loans.

More than jobs are back. New polls in Michigan show Obama has jumped ahead of his Republican opponents here.

And in what will prove to be tough sledding for Michigan Republicans, one of the biggest opponents of saving auto jobs was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In a 2008 New York Times editorial, titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," Romney argued against the job-saving loans. "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye," he claimed. "Detroit needs a turnaround not a check," Romney argued.

Whether it was Romney's hatred of unions (a Chapter 9 bankruptcy would have decimated the powerful United Auto Workers union) or his thinking only bankers and the 1 percent have a right to be helped by the government, the fact remains that most Republicans argued against saving the industry and many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs in the U.S.

It is revealing that Republicans opposed what amounted to $80 billion in loans to General Motors and Chrysler aimed at saving those jobs, but had no problem giving $700 billion, with no strings attached, to banks and insurance companies.

What also riled Republicans was that much of the money used to bring the auto industry back was in the form of the government taking an equity stake in the companies. Republicans derisively labeled General Motors "Government Motors." Their philosophy seems to be that large amounts of money can be freely given to banks but anything that goes in the direction of the government having a seat at the table, as it did for a while with the auto companies, is dangerous and un-American.

And in sharp contrast to the fleecing of the public by the banks, the government money used by the auto companies has largely been repaid.

Following the president's State of the Union speech, UAW President Bob King issued a statement saying, "Thanks to the Obama administration's commitment to U.S. manufacturing, domestic auto manufacturers have added 160,000 jobs."

In addition, the Detroit Free Press reported, the Automotive Research Council says about 15,000 auto-related jobs could be created in Michigan this year.

Are the new jobs enough? Not at all. While Chrysler's North Jefferson plant in Detroit is adding 1,100 jobs, over 10,000 have applied - a sign of the dire economic times. With a local unemployment rate near 50 percent, it is no surprise.

Many of the new jobs come at a lower, second-tier pay rate, a growing problem that confronts labor in many industries here and around the world. In its recent contract negotiations, the UAW placed a priority on reducing that gap, and won a significant $4 hourly raise increase for tier-two workers that will have them making approximately $19/hour by the time the contract expires - a step in the direction of parity with the $27 that workers with more seniority earn.

King argues that the job growth, and the union's work to both bring back and keep jobs here in the U.S., destroys an argument of the union-haters. To "those who say unions chase jobs out of the country, the facts prove them wrong," he said.

Union-bashing Republicans pushing "right-to-work" laws in Indiana, Michigan and elsewhere should take notice.

Photo: Megan McCormack // CC 2.0

Union leaders praise Obama's economic themes

Mark Gruenberg — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:40:00 -0500

WASHINGTON - Union leaders view positively the emphasis President Obama put on economic themes in his State of the Union address, particularly his call for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes while payroll taxes on the middle class do not rise.

The leaders also blasted the Republicans - both the party's presidential hopefuls and its congressional controllers - for blocking needed legislation , proposed by Obama and backed by labor, to put the U.S. back to work as high unemployment continues.

"Leaders are judged not just by what they say but to whom they listen," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said after Obama's Jan. 24 speech. The president "listened to the single mom working two jobs to get by, to the out-of-work construction worker, to the retired factory worker, to the student serving coffee to help pay for college.

"By laying out a vision of an America that can create jobs and prosperity for all instead of wealth for the few, the president voiced the aspirations and concerns of those who are too often ignored.

"And he made clear the era of the one percent getting rich by looting the economy, rather than creating jobs, is over," Trumka added. "What a contrast to the vision presented by presidential candidates squabbling over how much further to cut the taxes of the one percent," the AFL-CIO leader said, referring to GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, though not by name.

Obama "insisted on a more humble Wall Street subject to a thorough investigation of the misconduct in the mortgage markets that wrecked our economy by the full range of federal and state civil and criminal authorities. We applaud creation of a new mortgage crisis unit" for such probes, Trumka said. He also demanded Congress get out of the way of preventing economic recovery. Other comments included:

Steelworkers President Leo Gerard said his union supports Obama's demands for higher taxes on the rich, trade enforcement-especially against China-and revitalizing U.S. manufacturing. The Steelworkers, he added, "are ready to go to work," with the administration for those goals. Gerard, too, contrasted Obama's proposals positively, compared to those from the GOP hopefuls.

Obama "laid out a vision of the America we want and need, one that creates jobs and prosperity for us and not the one percent who have looted the economy," Gerard said. "Strengthening manufacturing by looking to build good jobs, green jobs, and sustainable jobs with American energy, skills, and values is a program for us.

"The president's commitment to discourage job outsourcing and promote insourcing is a ticket to a better economy...but the president cannot do this alone. Congress must immediately act on a massive scale to pass legislation, starting with a major investment in infrastructure. Congress should also approve pro-American manufacturing tax incentives or innovation, insourcing, training, and domestic capital investments, plus renewable energy to support American jobs.

"American workers and middle class families will respond to his saying that everyone must play by the same set of rules and pay their fair share under the 'Buffett Rule.' Millionaires and billionaires should pay at least the same tax rate as their office secretary. The president's record and blueprint are a stark contrast to the Republicans' campaign of obstruction that denies the right of workers to collective bargaining in the private and public sectors," Gerard stated.

Amalgamated Transit Union President Larry Hanley applauded Obama's "call to build an equitable economy" rather than what the U.S. has become: "A nation of two classes-the small cadre of the super rich and the rest of us, bus drivers, restaurant workers, telecom workers, fire fighters, and working families who have been victims of and taken the blame for this recession.

"It's time for Republican leaders in Congress to get serious about shared sacrifice in our nation by requiring the richest one percent to pay their fair share of taxes," he said.

Hanley also cited Obama's jobs-creation call-and said one key way to increase jobs is to finally pass a mass transit-highway construction law. "Few things can do more to help our economy dig out of this deep recession than investing in public transportation," he said. "The federal transit program that ensures accessible and affordable mass transit to safely get to and from work, school, the doctor and other important daily tasks. It creates good jobs, delivers customers to businesses, and helps clear the air. There is literally nothing more effective in getting our economy moving."

American federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Gerald McEntee focused on the congressional obstructionists who block Obama's proposals. Doing so, he said, has already hampered the recovery from the Great Recession.

"The choices Congress makes in 2012 will determine whether we save the middle class," warned McEntee. "We can do that by enacting Obama's jobs agenda. Or we can focus on misguided policies that do nothing but give more tax breaks to Wall Street financiers and transfer even more wealth to those at the top of the economic ladder. This nation cannot continue to be held hostage by corporate-backed politicians who have rejected every meaningful jobs plan. Their reckless games harmed the recovery and cost us our credit rating-all because they care more about political games than creating jobs...It's time for Congress to stop their games and get to work. It's time to enact the president's agenda for jobs."

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten was one of the few union leaders to concentrate solely on Obama's discussion of her union's issues. Obama devoted a short section of his speech to education.

Obama "made clear what teachers have long understood: We can't test our way to a middle class; we must educate our way to a middle class," she said. "The overemphasis on testing has led to narrowing of the curriculum, rather than creating a path to critical thinking and problem solving. These are the kinds of knowledge and skills our children need to compete in the global economy," she added.

"Respecting public school teachers and providing them with the tools and resources they need to help our children learn and grow are essential to building a strong public education system, competing in a global economy, and restoring economic opportunity for all," said Weingarten.

The Communications Workers of America liked Obama's plans to raise taxes on firms that outsource jobs. "It's critical to bring quality jobs back to the U.S. by eliminating tax benefits for companies that send U.S. jobs overseas," the union stated. "CWA strongly supports legislation to end taxpayer subsidies for corporations that get tax breaks, then, among other measures, move call center jobs offshore." It also declared firms "have too much power in writing legislation that rewards corporate interests and abandons U.S. workers, when it comes to manufacturing and services. Too many corporations routinely put short-term profits ahead of loyalty to the nation and workers who made their success possible. An America built to last cannot be one in which corporate money determines...what issues are debated."

Photo: Union members at a "March for Jobs & Economic Justice," Dec. 1, 2011, in New York City, John Minchillo/AP

Indy Occupy movement joins with labor unions in protest at Super Bowl Village

Jason Jones — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:41:00 -0500

INDIANAPOLIS - About 200 people including union members from the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), members of Indianapolis Jobs with Justice, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Tthe Indianapolis Teachers Association, Occupy Purdue, Occupy Anderson, and Occupy Indianapolis gathered on the South steps of the Indiana State House recently to voice their outrage over the American Legislative Exchange Council-backed "Right to Work" bill that will face a final vote in the Indiana Senate as soon as Wednesday.

Co-organizer Bill Mullen, professor at Purdue University, said "We want to make it impossible for the Republicans of the state to pass this bill without knowing that there's going to be dire consequences."

Those consequences were evident as the vibrant crowd of young and old, black Latino, and white marched through the throngs of Super Bowl Village attendees shouting, "What's disgusting? Union busting!" and "Hey hey, ho ho, right to work's got to go!"

Local news outlets were forced to turn their cameras on the march and acknowledge that despite the pretty picture painted by the downtown festivities, working people in Indiana are under harsh attacks by the wealthy one percent.

As the city geared up for the Super Bowl, the Indiana House passed the bill with a final vote of 54-44 last Wednesday. Five Republicans and all the Democrats voted against it. The bill now has to go back to the Senate where only four votes are needed to kill it. Democratic State Senator Jean D. Breaux attended the rally and reminded everyone to "reward our allies and punish our enemies."

Jim Ogden, a union electrician from Local 668 in Lafayette, pointed out the consequences for Republicans who support right to work. "At this point, I think we're looking at this as a kickoff for the elections come November and trying to do whatever we can to get the Republicans that had voted for this, out office."

Photo: Jason Jones