People Before Profit blog

Unemployment in Detroit reaches 17%, autoworkers send Obama letter on high-speed rail and jobs

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:49:00 +0000

DETROIT -- The shocking news this week is Detroit’s official unemployment rate is now 17%. Unless action is taken to re-open closed auto plants and prevent others from closing, the number will surely go higher.

In view of this, the recent letter to President Obama from 50 “Concerned Autoworkers, Retirees and Supporters” takes on special importance. The letter says that while some jobs have been saved, 400,000 auto jobs have been lost and more jobs loss will follow as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring at Chrysler and General Motors.

The letter also warns of a climate “tipping point” and points out how the economic crisis is interwoven with the environmental crisis because auto use contributes 20% of all annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 40% of all U.S. oil consumption.

To solve this combination of crises the letter calls for prioritizing the production of mass transit including buses, light rail, high-speed trains and the tracks they run on and building wind and water turbines as well as solar panels.

It credits the Obama administration for having taken a positive first step by creating two blue ribbon task forces; The White House Task Force on Middle Class Families, called Promoting American Manufacturing in the 21st Century, chaired by Vice-President Biden, and the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers, under the leadership of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Larry Summers, chief economic advisor.

It welcomes these initiatives and asks the president “to ensure that the size of the ideas being considered match the size of the problems we face.”

One idea to match the size of the problem is its call for government ownership saying since “the people are now major stockholders in GM and Chrysler, it would be in the national interest to assume direct ownership of the GM and Chrysler plants that are closed or closing (as interest on our investment) to expedite the retooling and conversion of these plants for the manufacture of the products.”

A good chance to put that retooling into action came last week. Midwest governors responding to President Obama’s high speed rail plan agreed to partner to work cooperatively to fund the Midwest Corridor, a regional high-speed rail plan that will connect cities throughout the region with frequent, reliable high-speed.

Through coordination, the region hopes to capture part of the $8 billion that President Obama has made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for high-speed passenger rail, the largest investment that the federal government has made in over a decade.

Al Benchich, one of the letter’s signers and former president of UAW Local 909 (GM) asked where will they get the trains, the tracks? “We have the people who can do the work, we’ve got the equipment; we just need work in the plants,” Benchich said.

Benchich indicated that Flint, where employment at GM has gone from 80,000 to less than 8,000 has plants that are fairly new and would be a good place for retooling to produce rail and other necessary products.

He also said plants that formerly made engines and transmissions could easily be converted to manufacture wind turbines.

What happens next is a good question. To re-open closed plants and develop an energy and transportation policy that meets the needs of people and the planet we live on requires more than action from the president. It also requires a huge coalition of elected officials at state and municipal levels, of unions and their membership, and of residents in the communities being affected by the crisis, be brought together to demand a new course. One hopes the 17% unemployment rate is enough to spur all parties to come together quickly.

jrummel @ pww.org

The Pittsburgh AFL-CIO convention and labor unity

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:42:00 +0000

The 26th Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO, taking place in Pittsburgh in mid September, will be a doozy.

Not since the historic 1995 convention has so much been on the line for the labor movement. The 1995 AFL-CIO convention was the first ever contested election for top leadership of the AFL-CIO. That election signaled a critical turning point for labor. The New Voices coalition of John Sweeney, Richard Trumka and Linda Chavez Thompson marked a dramatic turn from “business” unionism towards a more fighting stance for labor.

Fourteen years later, labor is poised for even more dramatic change. In 1995 labor was coming to grips with twelve long years of Reagan/Bush led corporate attacks on working people and their unions.

In 2009 labor is finding new footing in a rapidly changing economic and political situation. Shifting gears to confront the worst economic crisis to hit workers in 80 years is no simple matter. Moving from eight years of Bush number two, a time of war, crisis, lawless government attacks on civil liberties and rights, corruption and unbridled profiteering, is hard enough. But dramatic political change can make it even rougher. Now instead of defensive fights against naked corporate power, labor has to develop strategies and broad coalitions that can actually win.

With a pro-labor president, and a greatly improved balance of power in Congress, that may sound easy. It isn’t. Actually winning means the tough work of crafting coalitions and programs that can encompass many different needs, priorities and aspirations. Real life compromises are really hard in the face of years of pent-up frustrations with the lack of progress in many different directions, on many different issues.

So the 2009 AFL-CIO convention will wrestle with making many important turns. Fortunately the convention comes at a time of unprecedented labor unity. OK. I can hear the screaming already. What’s that you say? How can anyone call today’s labor movement united? There’s a big difference between formal organizational unity and unity in action on the ground. It’s true. We have two national labor federations and numerous internal union squabbles that boggle the mind. At the same time we have important unity in action. Think of the incredible role of a united labor movement in the 2008 elections. It showed a whole new level of labor’s independence and unity in electoral work. Think of the key issue cited in the split that formed the Change to Win federation. Today there is no significant divide in labor on the relationship of political action and organizing. There is tremendous unity in action for the Employee Free Choice Act. And no one seriously argues that labor law reform will “magically” organize millions without renewed commitment to pounding the pavement.

At a deeper level, the work that a united labor movement did to fight racism and promote working-class unity reached entirely new levels in the 2008 elections. Not in the last 40 years has labor been so totally united in backing a single candidate in the general election for president. And this time that unity was in action to elect the first African American president in our history. Labor had to, and did, take on the reflections of racism in its own ranks. Richard Trumka’s brilliant speech on racism and unity at the United Steelworkers convention in 2008 fired up union members across this county.

In addition to helping to elect a pro-labor president, labor’s efforts against racism and bigotry are also helping to build a much broader working-class unity. Much more of labor today is united around the idea that labor cannot be just the voice of its organized members. Most of labor now realizes that it must become the voice of all workers and the working class. We need only look at labor’s current energy in the fight for health care reform, for economic recovery, for aid to the unemployed, for foreclosure relief, against global warming, for fair trade, for infrastructure rebuilding, and on and on, to see a broad working-class program emerging. Even the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act is couched in terms of economic recovery and raising standards for all working families. Trumka’s recent speech to the national convention of the NAACP further illustrates labor’s growing ties to broader working class organizations and coalitions. Speaking of Trumka, it looks like the Pittsburgh AFL-CIO convention will elect him as its next president along with his slate of Liz Shuler (Secretary-Treasurer) and Arlene Holt Baker (Executive Vice President). At this point there are no other declared candidates. That would be a problem if there were sharp competing visions of labor’s future as was apparent at the 1995 convention. Sure there are difference in labor about how best to mobilize and maximize labor’s strength and leadership for change. But there are few differences about fighting for labor’s growing working class program and the single slate reflects that reality.

Based on the current level of labor unity in action on the ground, the more formal organizational unity will come. The on-going work to unite Change to Win and the AFL-CIO into one federation will get a boost from the Pittsburgh convention. Labor’s unfortunate organizational splits and fights give pundits and handicappers lots to speculate on. Labor’s unity in action gives members and supporters a real foundation to build on. All in labor’s ranks and labor partisans can help make sure that the Pittsburgh convention is the important milestone it needs to be. We can focus on the fighting program that all of labor is united around. We can focus on building the leading role of labor in building coalitions and movements that can win for all working people.

NYC transit union moves to defeat Bloomberg

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:50:00 +0000

NEW YORK—The rapidly fading myth that Mayor Michael Bloomberg would sail to an easy victory, due to his ability to spend tens of millions of dollars to drown out the voices of his opponents, was shattered as the city’s powerful Transport Workers Union Local 100 gave a ringing endorsement to Democratic mayoral candidate, city Comptroller Bill Thompson.

“We’re all going to be working together, to take New York City back, block by block, community, community by community, as we move forward,” Thompson said upon receiving the endorsement. We’re going to put someone in City Hall who’s going to stand up and fight for all of us, not just for wealthy New Yorkers.”

Earlier in the season, Bloomberg had been considered the assured victor, given his wealth and ability to flood radio and television airwaves, seemingly non-stop, with ads and to send slick mailers to city residents almost on a weekly basis. But recently, the mayor’s luck has been souring: His lead over Thompson, who will almost certainly be the Democratic challenger in November, has dropped by more than half in just over a month, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll, and a number of labor unions, democratic organizations, and most of the African American and Latino elected officials, as well as many white liberals, have endorsed Thompson. The Working Families Party recently voted to endorse Thomson as well, assuring him of a second spot on the ballot, and boots on the ground.

But TWU Local 100 represents something more: It is the first of the city’s three or four most powerful unions to back Thompson. It represents tens of thousands of bus, subway and other transit workers in New York City, making it a political powerhouse. And they’re vowing to make sure Bloomberg is defeated.

“We’ll be out in the streets,” Curtis Tate, TWU Local 100 acting president, told the World. “We’re going to knock on doors, we’ll make phone calls—whatever it takes to get Bill Thompson elected.”

Roger Toussaint, the former president of Local 100 and current TWU international vice president, came out to endorse Thompson as well. Toussaint enjoys rock star-like status in many areas. This is largely due to his leadership of the highly successful 2005 transit strike. Under New York State’s Taylor Law, which is widely considered to be in contravention of international labor law, it is illegal for public workers to strike; consequently, Bloomberg saw to it that Toussaint spent several days in jail.

“Bill Thompson has been a dedicated public servant and a friend and a supporter of working people,” Toussaint said. He added, challenging the rest of the labor movement to come out for Bloomberg’s defeat, “If you work for the city, if you’re a sanitation worker, if you’re a hospital worker, if you work in the health care industry, if you’re a cop or firefighter, if you’re in any of the many city agencies, you have to ask yourself which mayor, which leader of this city could relate more to your issues and to your concerns. If you ask yourself that question, the answer comes easy. Bill Thompson is the choice for working New Yorkers.”

Deborah Hardwick, a 26-year veteran of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who works as a subway conductor, added, “I can say this: Bill Thompson has always been supportive of the labor movement.” Thinking of the way the current mayor handled the famous 2005 transit strike, she added “Bloomberg was not very labor friendly. I have friends and relatives who work for other unions, and they have the same opinion of him, and he is not for working families.”

Thompson, who supported TWU during the strike, and has a long history of supporting labor and progressive struggles, said that the election was about the future direction of the city.

“It’s about the middle class,” he said, “and are we going to be able to stay in NY? Are we going to be able to afford to live in New York City?” He added that low- to middle-income working people were being pushed out of the city. “We’ve seen what eight years of Michael Bloomberg has done for New York.”

Labor issues call for a new New Deal

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:13:00 +0000

The executive council of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, called for a massive second economic stimulus package yesterday, modeled after FDR’s Works Progress Administration, noting that the agency put 3.5 million people to work in 1935 alone. The council, after a one-day meeting yesterday in Silver Springs, Md., declared:

“President Roosevelt’s strategy can be re-engineered to help revitalize the modern manufacturing sector by putting the jobless to work renovating factories and public structures, while others can develop financing and marketing plans to support domestic production and jobs.”

In addition to the WPA-type program the federation said the second stimulus plan must include an additional seven weeks or more extension of jobless benefits, another increase in food stamp benefits, more aid to state and local governments to prevent further layoffs and service cuts and more spending on infrastructure and clean energy products.

The federation said the measures are called for because the current recession is much deeper than anyone had first thought.

The call for the second stimulus was issued after the executive council met in a closed-door session with Jared Bernstein, a top economic aide in the Obama administration. During the session Bernstein talked about the administration’s pro-labor moves, said the first stimulus is slowly beginning to work and that the administration is not yet ready for a second stimulus.

AFL-CIO Policy Director Thea Lee said, in a phone interview, that Bernstein told the council that “one third of the stimulus money has been spent or is in the pipeline.” Lee said the union leaders directly pushed the administration spokesman for a second stimulus package and that “Bernstein said they’re not ready to talk about that yet.”

Labor has, of course, been more than ready to discuss a second stimulus.

Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer, has been calling for one for several months.

Earlier this month Trumka said the first stimulus, at $787 billion, was “too small for an economy with a 9.5 percent jobless rate, falling industrial production, rising foreclosures and declining gross domestic product.”

The union leaders went further in their warnings about the economy yesterday than they have gone in any statement thus far. Their statement said that, within 12 months, one third of all U.S. workers could end up finding themselves in either the category of unemployed or underemployed.

The executive council also announced plans for two big labor mobilizations in August – one on health care and another on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Both campaigns are intended to counter the on-going business backed efforts against both health care reform and labor law reform.

Sources say the labor leaders were angry about the decision of the Democratic-run 111th Congress, due to divisions within the Democratic majority, to put off final decisions on health care until after Sept. 8.

Even as the council was meeting unions were funneling 50,000 phone calls to members of Congress as part of a national day of action on health care reform.

Discussing the Employee Free Choice Act after the meeting, AFL-CIO Organizing Director Stewart Acuff said, “The important thing is to preserve the essential elements of the Employee Free Choice Act: Restoring the freedom to organize and bargain collectively. That’s the measure by which any tweaking of the law will be judged.”

The council itself reaffirmed the federation’s strong support for the bill’s majority sign-up provision, which calls for recognition of a union as soon as a majority of workers sign cards indicating that they want representation by that union.

Acuff said that alternatives to majority sign-up, including mail-in ballots, mail-in authorization cards and quick NLRB elections were not discussed much at the meeting but were also not ruled out. “These would be dramatically better than what we have now,” he said.

Current law allows long campaigns that give employers the opportunity to harass, intimidate and fire union organizers.

Senate sponsor Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, continues to insist that majority sign-up is still on the table. “Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to,” he is saying.

After the meeting AFL-CIO Legislative Director, Bill Samuel and AFSCME President Gerald McEntee described some of the discussion on health care reform.

“We reviewed what’s happened so far and talked about our success in beating back the idea of taxing health benefits,” Samuel said.

“But if the Senate Finance Committee decides to let employers off the hook and to ax the government run public option, we’ll have to see what to do,” said McEntee.

McEntee’s union, alone, has some 16,000 members out campaigning for health care with a strong public option and is running a national television ad campaign on the issue.

Working families rally for public option

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:20:00 +0000

Original source:

Health Care For America Now, a coalition including unions, rallied in Seattle Tuesday to support health care reform with a public option. Zels Bryan Johnson was there:

” People here are absolutely ecstatic about the demand for the public option. One of the signs I’m looking at is “Now – I Can’t Afford To Wait”. Another sign is “Pass The Public Option Now”. And you see things from AFT Washington – and they’re saying unity, strength, action and “Health Care For America Now.”

As working families and their unions flooded capitol hill with phone calls Tuesday calling for the House to pass health care reform with a public option plan, the Senate Finance Committee was busy eliminating the public option from their proposal. The chairman of that committee is Democrat Max Baucus. He gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the monied interests that oppose a public option – the insurance industry, as well as pharmaceutical drug makers and HMO’s. Robby Stern is with the Puget Sound Alliance For Retired Americans, one of the groups supporting the Seattle rally for the public option:

“They are spending $1.4 million per day to try and make sure that we do not get a public option and that there is not a requirement of some employer responsibility. We’re in a pitched battle. I think we’re in hand-to-hand combat at this point.”

So the political war over health care reform comes down to this. Monied interests trying to protect their power and profits in the existing health care system on the one hand - versus working families, their unions and health care reform advocates pressing for real reform that delivers quality health care to all on the other. The question the politicians and the American people must soon answer is which side are you on?

Minneapolis author bringing 1934 Teamsters strike to life

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:20:00 +0000

ST. PAUL -(Workday Minnesota) After “Bloody Friday,” in 1934, when Minneapolis police brutalized about 60 striking truck drivers, an old woman drove up to the strike’s headquarters in a truck filled with supplies.

It must have been a comical sight — when she opened the car door the truck drivers could see that she was sitting on pillows and had tied wooden blocks to her feet in order to reach the pedals. The striking Teamsters immediately made the old woman head of the hospital visitation division of the women’s auxiliary.

Ben Fisher, a Minneapolis artist and author found this anecdote while researching his new book, “Class Fracas: Sketches of the 1934 Minneapolis Truckers Strike.” He said it proved for him the level of organization and commitment the Teamsters and their supporters had during the strike.

artist Ben Fisher Artist Ben Fisher at work.

Union Advocate photo Fisher became interested the event while reading a book by Farrell Dobbs, an American Trotskyist and leader of the strike. The violence was jarring, and Fisher was fascinated by how the strike remains part of the fabric of modern day Minneapolis.

“I wanted to write a book that was introductory and exploratory” to get readers interested, he said. Fisher considers the book a jumping off point for readers to do their own research.

Aside from his work as an artist and a writer, Fisher has spent time working for the Service Employees International Union, His experiences at SEIU left him feeling that the labor movement has become dry and bureaucratic, another reason he was driven to write the book.

He reminisces about a time when unions that served not just a collective bargaining purpose, but a cultural one. He thinks that labor-related art is an integral part of making people feel moved to join a union.

He recalled a co-worker whose involvement in organizing had stemmed from seeing and being moved by a poster of famed IWW organizer, Joe Hill. Fisher says he would be glad if the book’s mixture of art and text moved just one reader to become involved with the labor movement, or to continue reading about the topic.

The book is meant as a jumping off point for readers to do their own research. “I wanted to open up the history,” he said, to get readers interested.

The book centers on the series of strikes that took place in Minneapolis in 1934, when a powerful group of business owners known as the Citizens Alliance refused to recognize the truckers union in Minnesota. The Teamsters went on strike, and violence escalated throughout the summer. The conflict ended with union recognition, but not before the National Guard had been called in, four strikers had been killed and about 200 injured.

Fisher’s book is not, as it has been called, a graphic novel. “What I ended up doing,” Fisher explained, “was coming up with a relationship between text and images, having the text tell the story and having the image broaden the text, but not making it redundant.”

Of his visual art, Fisher calls the images abstract. “I try to make them like a visual puzzle,” he said. “You might have to take some time with it to understand the relationship between text and image.”

Fisher attempted to use oral histories to reconstruct the events of 1934. He wanted to show the phenomenal amount of control that the Citizen’s Alliance had over the city.

He also tried to bring his readers back to 1934. His characters used a rich vernacular that Fisher admires. “I incorporated the slang into the writing” he explained. “Some of the terms I had never even heard of. ‘Donnybrook’ is one they used a lot. It means a real intense street brawl.”

Ultimately, he said, the story is about “everyday people coming together, commitment, solidarity, and leadership,” Fisher explains. “I’m trying to underline that these were ordinary people fighting for survival.”

New Orleans day laborers want wage theft criminalized

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:30:00 +0000

Original source:

Post-Katrina New Orleans has become the center of a national effort to protect migrant day laborers from wage theft.

As Facing South has covered, following the 2005 hurricane season, the Gulf Coast region saw an explosion in its Hispanic population, particularly in New Orleans where migrant workers came to fill the construction jobs that opened up during the post-Katrina recovery effort. Estimates indicate the New Orleans metro area's Hispanic population has tripled in the last three years, from about 60,000 to about 180,000.

Many of New Orleans' Hispanic migrant workers have faced rampant wage theft, coercion and abuse. Following the hurricanes, in what labor rights advocates have called the 'disaster after the disaster,' hundreds of contractors along the Gulf Coast employed migrant workers to clean up debris, repair damaged roofs and restore flood-soaked buildings, Contractors then reneged on promises to pay workers after that work was completed. The exploitation has been especially rampant in New Orleans, where thousands of workers employed by construction contractors to rebuild homes are still routinely shortchanged and denied promised wages once the work is completed.

In fact, according to a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, New Orleans has the highest incidence of wage theft in the South. Of those workers surveyed by SPLC, a whopping 80 percent of the workers said they were victims of wage theft while working in New Orleans' recovery since Hurricane Katrina. A 2008 survey of 300 day laborers indicated they had worked a total of 12,000 unpaid days and lost a total of $400,000 in wages, reports the New Orleans CityBusiness.

There are very few legal options for migrant workers, and the current laws on the books aren't enough to protect workers, day labor advocates say. Simply put, there are no criminal statutes that hold contractors who practice wage theft legally accountable for their actions.

new orleans day laborer.jpgNew Orleans day laborers and labor rights advocates have been campaigning to stop wage theft, and to end the abuse, intimidation, exploitation and discrimination against migrant day laborers. Organizing with the New Orleans Congress of Day Laborers, a project of the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, workers have urged local lawmakers and officials to pass tougher laws that would classify shortchanging or denying wages to a hired day laborer a crime.

Workers brought their case before the New Orleans city council in a public hearing in late June, testifying to the rampant abuse in the sector. New Orleans Councilman Arnie Fielkow has started working on a city ordinance, which he hopes to have drafted by August, that would protect day laborers by criminalizing wage theft.

Under state and federal law wage theft is a civil offense, which means workers can file civil suits against employers in small claims court, but often migrant workers face challenges to taking such measures. Fielkow's ordinance would instead make wage theft a criminal offense, allowing cops to arrest violators. Supporters of the ordinance hope the law will empower the New Orleans Police Department to crack down on offending contractors and discourage employers from violating wage laws.

Contract arbitration: Critical to workers freedom to bargain

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:24:00 +0000

Original source:

One of the critical provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act would guarantee that workers who form a union get a fair first contract. Because right now, writes Catherine Fisk of the University of California-Irvine:

“During the past decade, nearly half of all newly certified unions failed to reach a first contract within a year, and one-quarter of new unions did not have a contract after three years of bargaining.”

Writing in the National Law Journal, Fisk says that by not getting a fair first contract, workers who exercised their right to select union representation

never got what the law guarantees them: collective representation in establishing wages and working conditions.

Getting a first contract is a critical part of the union formation process—and ensuring that workers have access to a fair negotiating process is central to reforming the nation’s labor law. We need to make sure there’s a process to help employees and management reach an agreement through mediation and, for issues the parties are unable to resolve on their own, arbitration.

Writes Fisk:

First-contract arbitration will end the widespread employer practice of flouting the duty to bargain, talking a union to death and acting with impunity in defeating the employees’ choice of unionization.

Fisk notes that either side in a contract negotiation can request arbitration, and only after months of bargaining.

Pride, anger mix as Chrysler workers watch plants shut down

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:06:00 +0000

FENTON, Mo. — As the crowd swells and hundreds of UAW members line the entrance to the Chrysler North and South Assembly plants here today, I can’t help but think of my grandfather. He gave over 30 years to Chrysler.

On average, the union brothers and sisters here have given 15 to 20 years of their life to a company that has turned its back on the community.

Evidence of the betrayal is apparent in the stilled, lifeless plants, in the lost wages and benefits, in deferred college applications and missed mortgage payments. In addition, the school district has lost its biggest source of tax revenue. And the United Auto Workers union hall, once a center for community activism, will eventually have to close its doors.

As the rally builds, cars and trucks fill the lot. Chants fill the air as a thousand-plus union members, their families and friends walk around with their heads held high. It's almost ironic. The background is filled with steel and metal, towering but silent, while the foreground is alive and vibrant, hopeful. Full of pride.

It really says a lot about working class folks. How they still manage to smile and connect with friends and former coworkers in spite of the situation. But then again, workers have always been able to make the best out of a bad situation.

My grandmother receives UAW-negotiated survivor’s benefits now that my grandfather is gone. Like her, thousands of other Chrysler retirees are loosing their dental and vision coverage due to the bankruptcy. I wonder how many of the thousand-plus workers here and their families won't have health care soon.

Adding injury to insult, over $12 billion in taxpayer dollars was given to Chrysler. They called it a bailout. The workers here call it a scam. Eight plants in the U.S. are being closed, while Chrysler plants in Mexico and Canada increase production.

The first speaker on the podium yells, 'This is about using American tax dollars for American jobs.' The crowd erupts into chants of 'Keep it made in America.'

Joe Shields, president of UAW Local 110, motions back to the plants and says, 'Look at these factories. They're idle. Look at how Chrysler treats us.'

State Rep. Sam Komo tells everybody to 'keep fighting.' He says, 'We've been in this battle before. We've seen economic hard times. But, you know what, brothers and sisters, it’s our friendships that have kept us going. And we're going to keep fighting.'

State Rep. Joe Fallert adds, 'Americans should be mad as hell. We paid $1.5 billion per plant that closed.'

As cars and trucks drive by and blow their horns in support, it’s easy to see how everybody is connected to everybody here in this small Midwestern town. Chuck Bank, Jefferson County executive, says, 'Twenty-five percent of all jobs here are tied to the auto industry.'

State Rep. Tim Meadows, a 30-year Teamster member, hits the nail on the head when he says, 'Corporate America has been feeding at the trough. Enough is enough is enough.'

He's right, enough is enough.

tonypec @ cpusa.org

Done crying, today shell even smile minimum wage & one moms story

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:46:00 +0000

MERIDEN, Kan. — Celeste Henderson is a living, breathing mom who is in the news today, but only as a statistic. She’s one of the millions of American low-wage workers directly affected by Friday’s hike in the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour.

The 26-year-old single parent works as a waitress while raising a 3-year-old in a crowded frame house here with her mother, father and two older brothers.

She says she cried a lot for more than a year after the baby was born, partly because the child’s father wouldn’t “even come around to see his son” and partly because “I have to spend so many of my days and even my nights at the restaurant.”

“But I’m done crying about all that now,” she told the World today, “and the extra money coming tomorrow is already putting a smile on my face.”

Henderson works at a downtown Topeka restaurant.

“I wait tables there, it’s not a big restaurant so there are no busboys and you have to do everything yourself,” she said. “The money isn’t really good except it’s a little better on weekend nights when there are specials like the all-you-can eat crab legs.”

Celeste explained that the owner is very careful to see to it that, with tips included, she goes home with $6.55 an hour, the guaranteed federal minimum wage up to midnight tonight.

She said she is “thrilled” about the increase “because I know that I can’t be coming home to my son with anything less than $7.25 for each hour that I spend away from him.”

Celeste said she is thankful for good neighbors in Meriden. “Randy’s gotten all of his clothes and almost all of his toys from people in town once their children have outgrown them or are finished with them.”

“This whole thing is swirling around inside my head. Seventy cents more an hour. Maybe now I can actually buy something. I’m so ashamed of not being able to buy even a simple little thing for my baby.

“He’s going to be ready for school in a few years. Maybe with this I can save a little for what he’ll need.

“I’d like to buy just one special toy for him, just one thing that’s not a hand-me-down. Can you imagine how happy he’ll be?”

Economists say the ability of millions of moms like Celeste to buy that one special toy will boost the economy.

Kai Filion, an economist at the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute, has called minimum wage hikes “an extremely effective and simple policy that achieves both the goal of helping struggling families and creating jobs.”

“By increasing families’ take-home pay, workers gain both financial security and an increased ability to purchase goods and services, thus creating jobs for other Americans,” says Filion.

The labor movement and progressive economists note, however, that, even with the bigger minimum wage, American workers are falling further and further behind.

“Even with 4.5 million of America’s lowest wage workers getting a pay increase to $7.25 an hour tomorrow,” said Heidi Shierholz, another EPI economist, the real value of the minimum wage is lower than it was 30 years ago.”

The problem of the declining real income of the working-class majority is not a problem shared by the wealthy, however.

“The top 1 percent has done very well,” according to an EPI report issued yesterday, “more than doubling their share of income from 1979 to 2006. The income of the top 1 percent grew to about 23 percent, or an average of $1.3 million per household.”

The AFL-CIO yesterday posted reports on its web site that showed CEOs received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, and those figures did “not include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted stock units and other benefits.”

“America’s working class made it clear last November that they wanted change,” a federation statement said, “and reshaping the nation’s framework to strengthen the middle class and close the wage disparity between the very top and the rest of us, is fundamental to that change.”

Moves are under way in many states for further increases in the minimum wage. The Michigan Democratic Party, for example, said yesterday it is considering a ballot initiative asking voters to raise the state’s minimum wage from the current $7.40 an hour to $10 an hour.

jwojcik @ pww.org

Please come to Pittsburgh

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:04:00 +0000

They say that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

Maybe, at times, that’s true.

This is about what is going to happen in another city, however — the home of the Pirates, Steeltown, USA, — the city of Pittsburgh.

Consider this an invitation to come with us to that city this September to help launch something that will definitely not stay in Pittsburgh. In fact, it just might be a shot heard round the world and the beginning of something bigger and better than anything we have ever seen in American politics.

The AFL-CIO will hold its quadrennial national convention in Steeltown from Sept. 13 to 17.

Just another meeting, you ask? Not on your life.

The gathering comes on the heels of the historic and successful full fledged entrance of a united labor movement into our national politics and the resulting election of President Barack Obama.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes while lawmakers in the nation’s capital put the finishing touches on legislation that could end the national shame of 50 million Americans living, in this 21st century, without health insurance.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes as Congress prepares to vote on the most significant labor law reform since the Great Depression.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes as labor and its allies confront the task of clearing away the economic wreckage of a 30 year era of ultra-right domination in our country.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes as the entire world grapples with how to beat swords into ploughshares and how to forge a future of growth, jobs, and income for all.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes while the world grapples with how to save the planet itself from dangerous warming.

The gathering in Pittsburgh comes as this country we love enters an unprecedented era of reform. The question we, as a people face, is whether that reform will fizzle out or whether it will last for a very long time and perhaps grow into something bigger and better.

The reforms of the 1930s lasted a long time because they were working class led. In Pittsburgh we expect to literally see a massive labor-led peoples’ movement catching its breath, energizing itself and mobilizing for the struggles ahead.

Labor will be mapping plans to expand union membership to millions now unorganized.

Success will mean a much more organized working class in America.

That success will guarantee that the reforms of this era will, indeed, be enduring ones.

Through us you can be where all of this is happening.

The People’s Weekly World will be in Pittsburgh, covering developments every step of the way.

We will give you the best coverage you can get because, as you have read, we have the perspective others don’t. The People’s Weekly World, unlike others, knows what to look for at a labor convention. We, like the labor movement and its allies, know the people want to read about what’s at stake for them.

We’re taking our responsibility so seriously that we plan to have a full team on the ground to bring you developments as they happen. We want to do our best because you deserve the best.

You can help us accomplish this by sending a contribution of whatever you can afford. You can be confident that whatever you send will be used to make the quality of our work that much better. You can read about, listen to and watch the events in Pittsburgh at the PWW website every day and you can read about them again when the paper comes out in print.

We are excited about this and want to produce a product that you, our readers, will be proud of and a product that helps the whole movement move forward. Please help. Please come with us to Pittsburgh.

Media on card check Wrong or just missing the point?

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:58:00 +0000

Just days after the New York Times and other media outlets reported recently that a group of senators “dropped” the majority sign-up provision of the Employee Free Choice Act, the Service Employees International Union responded with an online petition campaign demanding that both houses of Congress schedule an up or down vote on the provision, either as part of the EFCA or by itself.

When he released the petition SEIU President Andy Stern said, “By giving workers the fair choice to join unions and not their bosses, majority signup allows workers to have a voice on the job. Congress needs to hear about your support for majority signup.”

“As we have said from day one, majority signup is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace,” he said.

When the stories about the “death of card check” broke, a spokesperson for Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, denied the existence of any such agreement.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney indicated that what he called “speculative reports” about the “dropping” of card check were not the main issue regarding the legislation.

“A bill will be signed into law this year giving workers – not their bosses – the choice about how to form a union,” he declared.

Stern pointed out, “The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process and we expect a vote on the majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

The so-called deal that the media reports claimed would scuttle “card check,” as majority signup is sometimes called, was just one of many “compromises” floated recently among senators. All the compromises considered seriously by Harkin, the senator has said, involve keeping the intent of majority signup while finding a way to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster against the EFCA.

None of the media reports about the negotiations pointed out that majority signup has been the way workers designate a union as their representative since the Wagner Act was passed during the Great Depression. Taft-Hartley amended that after World War II to allow companies the option of requiring a “secret ballot” election.

There would be no need for any talks about compromise were it not for several Blue Dog conservative Democratic senators who claim they support labor law reform but want to preserve secret ballot elections in the process.

Some of the proposed compromises discussed involve workers mailing their signed union authorization cards or even completed ballots directly to the NLRB.

Senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania are among the senators Harkin and the unions have been pressuring, according to one of the People’s Weekly World’s labor sources who said, “The thinking there probably is that if Pryor goes along with something, so will Blanche Lincoln and the rest of the ones sitting on the fence.”

There are reports that among the revisions are ones that would require union elections five days after 30 percent of the workers signed authorization cards, another that would forbid companies from requiring workers to attend captive audience meetings, and one that would give union organizers access to company property.

The reports in the Times and elsewhere also neglected to mention that Harkin has said he will not agree to any measure that does not uphold three basic principals – workers getting the right to make an unhampered choice, stiffer penalties for companies that violate labor law, and provisions for arbitration when employers drag their feet in negotiations.

They also did not report that, according to Harkin, in the event of a move to gut any of the core principals, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has agreed that the original measure will be brought to the Senate floor for an up or down vote so “everyone can see where each senator stands.”

The pro-business Workforce Fairness Institute continues to churn out press releases indicating that even a bill without majority signup would be unacceptable. “We see it as a hostile act to have arbitrators telling businesses what they have to do,” the statement reads.

“Majority signup is based in a simple idea,” Stern said as he called for signatures on the SEIU petition. “If a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It’s the best way to make sure workers have a full and free choice to join a union without interference or harassment.”

jwojcik@pww.org

Trumka at NAACP: Building union power means taking on racism

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:43:00 +0000

Remarks by Richard L. Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, 100th Annual NAACP Convention, New York, N.Y., July 15, 2009.

Thank you.

Wow, after an introduction like that I can't wait to hear what I have to say!

Before anything, there are some people I want to thank, not only for their leadership of the NAACP – but also for their commitment to building a strong, new movement for worker rights in this country.

A movement that can strengthen the labor movement – and, with it, the American middle-class. I'm talking, of course, about your incredible vice chair, Roslyn Brock.

Of course, there's someone who I regard as one of the most important agents for change in America today, your executive director, Ben Jealous.

And then there's a man who has been a personal hero of mine ever since 1968 when I first heard him speak out against the war in Viet Nam. He has been, and remains, one of this generation's strongest voices for peace and justice – I'm talking about your chairman – the Honorable Julian Bond!

And there are some other people who I'd also like to thank: and that's you: the women and men of the NAACP. You've made it your mission to see to it that America lives up to its promises -- and that we're always guided by the better angels of our nature. Whether its combating police brutality in California, organizing for better schools in Georgia or leading the fight to protect the city water system in Cincinnati the NAACP is there.

You don't do it because you enjoy setting up meetings or making phone calls or organizing demonstrations. You didn't get active in the NAACP because you thought it would be easy. No: You're in the NAACP because you know it's morally right. Thanks to your hard work. Thanks to your dedication. Thanks to your willingness to lay it all on the line. The NAACP today remains what it's been for the last century:

A force for change!

A catalyst for justice!

A movement to build an America:

Where every voice is heard!

Where every vote is counted!

Where every family matters!

And where all of us – all of us -- have a seat at the table!

That's the kind of America the NAACP believes in!

That's the kind of America the labor movement believes in!

And, in 2009, together with President Barack Obama, that's the America we intend to build! And we don't have a minute to waste! Because if we don't act now … if we don't seize this incredible moment … we may not get another chance – and our grandchildren will never forgive us.

Because you and I know that, as tremendous a victory as Barack Obama's election was, we can't let it be an achievement to rest on. No: It's up to us to make it a foundation to build on. You and I know that the election was a triumph over racism, but it wasn't the end of racism.

It was a milestone, but it wasn't the finish line.

Now, I know everyone here knows that. After all, the reason each of you joined the NAACP to begin with is because you knew that it would take more than an election to turn this nation around – even if it was the election of an African-American president. The roots of the crisis facing our country run deep. The policies of the last eight years helped to turn much of America into an industrial wasteland. You know, people talk about a middle-class squeezed. Well, the African-American middle-class isn't being squeezed; it's being crushed Though the media doesn't report it, we all know that African-American poverty was on the rise years before anyone thought there'd be a recession. The home ownership rate among African-Americans was dropping long before anyone talked about a foreclosure crisis. And the health care crisis? As everyone in the NAACP knows, there's never been a moment when the African-American community has ever had access to quality, affordable health care. It's part of the reason why African Americans are more likely to die from strokes, and cancer, and heart attacks, and diabetes. Yes, there's an African-American man living in the White House, but the fact is that the life expectancy for African American men in America today is still six years less than it is for white men!

Do we need to elect more leaders who have the guts to take these issues on?

Absolutely.

But, you know, we can't only win these fights at the ballot box; we also have to take them to the bargaining table.

Because we can't win justice in the community, unless there's justice on the job. And winning justice on the job is what the American labor movement is all about! Because you and I know there's a reason why African Americans who have a union earn over one third more than African Americans who don't. It's the same as the reason why they're more likely to have health care and pensions -- and why they're more likely to have access to the training they need to turn jobs into careers.

It's not because unionized employers are nice guys and want it to be that way; no it's because unionized African-American workers have the strength to make it that way! Unionized aren't more deserving, they're just more organized!

And, I want to tell you, that's why your support for the Employee Free Choice Act is so critically important! I know that most folks here already know what the Employee Free Choice Act would do. NAACP chapters all over America have made passing the Act one of their top priorities and I can tell you that, in large part, because of your support we're now within a hair's breadth of winning in the Senate.

And I shouldn't have to tell you that President Obama has made it absolutely clear to me and others that once it does pass the Senate he'll immediately sign it into law.

But we also know that there are some people who have a stake in keeping the Employee Free Choice Act from passing. They're companies who don't see workers as their best asset, but as their biggest expense. I'm talking companies whose definition of labor-management cooperation is when workers keep their mouths shut and do as they're told.

I'm talking about CEOs – not all of them, but far too many – who have convinced themselves that there's no way they can get ahead without leaving their employees behind. Those have made it crystal clear that they will do whatever it takes to keep the Employee Free Choice Act from ever making it to President Obama's desk. They have been waging one of the most expensive, divisive and dishonest lobbying campaigns in U.S. history. Now, am I saying the other side is deliberately trying to mislead people?

Well, I'll let you be the judge. Last October, Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, said that passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would trigger – and this a quote -- 'the demise of civilization.' Now, think about that for a minute. If you were to walk out of this hall and ask the first ten people you see what the greatest threat to civilization is today, they might tell you it's global warming, or terrorism, or hunger, or, maybe, a flu epidemic. But my guess is that you won't find one who'll say it's revising the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. So why the hysteria? Well, it's not because of the harm it's going to do them. It's because of the good it's going to do for Billy Mason. My guess is no one here knows Mr. Mason.

There's no reason you should. But 23 years ago, after a four-year stint in the Marines, Mr. Mason went to work at the Alcoa plant in Hampton, Virginia. He got a job grinding and polishing metal castings to make airplane parts. Now, on paper, factory jobs like Mr. Mason's can help millions of African-American manufacturing workers like Billy Mason into the middle-class. All it takes is one thing: a union contract. But the Hampton, Virginia plant was non-union – and Alcoa planned to keep it that way. The upshot was that pay raises were so few and far between that, after more than two decades on the job, Billy Mason was actually earning $2 an hour less in real wages than when he started. But that's not all.

One day, Alcoa announced that it had decided to eliminate fully paid health insurance. Of course, since they didn't have a contract the workers didn't have a say in the matter. What did it mean for Billy Mason? With the added cost of health care, Mr. Mason's dropped to the point where he was earning $6,000 less than he did his first year on the job! In fact, if you ask him he'll tell you that he actually had more money in his pocket back when his kids were little and his wife didn't work! So what did Billy Mason do? Well, he and his co-workers decided to do the same thing that other African-American workers had done before him. They decided to form a union and joined up with the United Steelworkers.

Now, if Mr. Mason was one of Alcoa's 32,000 European employees that would have been the end of it. The company would have recognized the union and negotiated a contract. But Hampton, Virginia isn't Europe – and Alcoa did everything it could to keep the workers from having their union. At the beginning of each shift the company held mandatory union bashing meetings. When the day to vote on whether to have a union grew closer, Alcoa began to bring in what Mr. Mason calls 'the suit and tie people' to push them even harder.

It went for two months.

The result?

The company succeeded. Even though Mr. Mason and two-thirds of his co-workers had signed cards authorizing the Steelworkers to be their bargaining agent, they lost the election. People were scared. But not Billy Mason. Like I said Mr. Mason had been a Marine. He doesn't give up easy. That's why, despite the loss and Alcoa's fear campaign he and some of his co-workers continued to try to exercise his legal right to organize. What happened? Well, in retaliation, Billy Mason was singled out for harassment and, to set an example to every other worker, he was suspended without pay for two weeks.

Of course, the union took Mr. Mason's case to the National Labor Relations Board and, eventually, he was awarded his back pay. But, the damage was done. Workers got the message loud and clear and, as we meet here today, I can tell you that Billy Mason and his co-workers at Alcoa still don't have a union contract. But even though those workers have been bloodied they haven't been beaten. At least not if Mr. Mason has anything to say about it. 'I believe the rights we have [today] were fought for,' he said. 'People shed blood and people died, and I'm not going to let those rights be taken away!'

Well, today I think we ought to send Mr. Mason and his co-workers a message. It's that we hear you…we stand with you… we refuse to accept that any workers should ever have to choose between joining a union and keeping their jobs.

Brothers and sisters, brave men and women didn't risk their lives in Selma and Birmingham and Memphis so companies like Alcoa could rob workers like Billy Mason of his right to organize! We need the Employee Free Choice Act and we need it now! But I need to tell you that the challenge we face isn't only passing the Employee Free Choice Act. It's taking full advantage of it once we do. And that begins by reaching out to organize the workers the labor movement left behind. Who are they? Well, a lot of them are African Americans. And I'd like to talk about that for a minute.

You know, of all the challenges the NAACP has taken on over these last 100 years few have been as necessary – few have been as important – as the crusade this organization led to end segregation in the American labor movement.

The NAACP understood something that a lot of labor leaders didn't. In July, 1929 – exactly eighty years ago – W.E.B. Du Bois warned that, unless organized labor took a critical look at itself and abandoned segregation, it would face what he called 'irreparable loss.'

And history proved him right.

At a time when unions in countries were mobilizing to win universal health care and a new social contract, a lot of union leaders here were more concerned with keeping a 'whites only' sign posted on the door of the American labor movement.

At the very time they should have been building one movement of white workers, and African-American workers, and Latino workers, and Asian-American workers – and women workers of every color – they were fighting to keep them out. Du Bois captured the tenor of the times when he wrote that: 'Whatever ideals white labor today strives for in America, it would surrender … before it would recognize a Negro as a man.'

Well, we can't change the sins of the past. But we can learn from them – and build a new kind of labor movement for the future. A labor movement that goes beyond gestures, beyond rhetoric and tokenism. A labor movement that understands that being inclusive isn't just a matter of kicking in a few dollars to UNCF or having an article about Black History Month in the union newspaper.

No. We can't just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. We can't only preach about change; we have to make change happen. And that means investing the time, the energy, the talent, and the resources it's going to take to begin the work of organizing five million (4.8 million) poverty wage African American workers so they can have the paycheck, the benefits… and the opportunities -- that can only come with a union contract!

Is it possible? The labor movement can't do the job alone, but together – with the NAACP – I'm convinced that we can. Together, a new alliance between the labor movement and the NAACP can begin the work of transforming poverty wage work into jobs with a future.

Together, working as partners – at the grassroots -- we can make the promise of collective bargaining real to a new generation of African American workers. Working together, we can begin to grow the African American middle-class.

I know that's always been a priority of the NAACP – and, after September, it's going to be a priority at the AFL-CIO, too.

Now, I've always been a big believer in the proposition that speeches ought to end on the same day they begin. But as I was getting ready to come up to join you today, I remembered something that I heard a long time ago. It was something Bobby Kennedy said. I'm guessing a lot of you remember it, too. (I know Julian Bond does) He said: 'some see things as they are and ask why, we dream things that never were and ask why not.' I was thinking about that because, for 100 years, that's the question the NAACP has been asking.

And, today, it's the question the AFL-CIO is asking, too.

Together, we have a vision of a different kind of an America than the one we have today. A nation that's guided by its dreams; not shackled by its fears. We see an America where all of us are able to take our place in the winner's circle. We see not an America where there's dignity in all work -- and respect for every worker. We see an America that doesn't turn its back on people who work with their hands.

An America where everyone who wants a college education can afford one! Where every child who needs a doctor can see one! Where every man and woman who looks for a job can find one!

An America where every single worker who wants to have a union can join one! That's the American future we dream of – and I swear to you that, together, together, that's the American future we're going to win. We're going to win because we're strong!

We're going to win because we're proud!

We are going to win because we are one movement standing together!

One movement marching together!

One movement fighting together!

One movement winning together!

One movement taking this country back together!

Because it's our jobs!

Our families!

Our future!

Our dreams!

Because this is our America – and we will not be denied!

God bless America – and God bless the NAACP!

Union petitions Congress for vote on majority signup

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:38:00 +0000

Andy Stern, president of the 2.5-million-member Service Employees International Union, launched a national petition drive today to insist that both the House and Senate schedule an up or down vote on allowing workers to form a union by majority signup, either as part of the Employee Free Choice Act or as a separate amendment.

By late morning the petition to Congress had reached, via e-mail, more than 100,000 trade unionists and their supporters.

To sign the petition .

The move comes after a series of speculative reports in the media late last week and early this week that claimed labor friendly senators were poised to “drop” the majority signup provision of the Employee Free Choice Act in order to ensure a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority for the measure. See

Stories in the People's Weekly World indicated that the latest “compromises” were among many ideas floated by a group of senators who feel that they can both preserve the intent of the majority signup provision – giving workers and not employers the real choice of whether they want a union – and, at the same time win support from Blue Dog Democrats who say they favor labor law reform but want to maintain the “privacy” of elections.

Stern had indicated last Friday, when reports about the “dropping” of majority signup (also called card check) first appeared, that “the Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process and we expect a vote on the majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

A spokesman for Sen. Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, who has been shepherding the EFCA through Congress, told the World, at the time, that “nothing” had been agreed to.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said confidently, also at that time, “A bill will be signed into law this year giving workers – not their bosses – the choice about how to form a union.”

When he released his petition online today Stern said, “By giving workers the fair choice to join unions and not their bosses, majority signup allows workers to have a voice on the job. Congress needs to hear about your support for majority signup.”

There is concern in the labor movement that unless a way can be found to modify the majority signup provision of the bill, without sacrificing the “core principal” of giving the workers the actual choice of whether they want union representation, the EFCA, as a whole, would be vulnerable to a Republican filibuster.

Sen. Harkin has said he will not agree to any measure that does not uphold three basic principals – workers getting the right to make an unhampered choice, stiffer penalties for companies that violate labor law, and provisions for arbitration when employers drag their feet in negotiations. The labor movement is, of course, in agreement.

Business groups, who have spent millions campaigning against and strong arming people in Congress to vote against the EFCA say that they remain adamantly opposed to the bill, even without the majority signup provision.

Harkin has also said that if there is any move to gut any of the core principals he has the assurance of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that the full original measure will be brought up to the floor for an up or down vote, so “everyone can see where each senator stands.”

“Majority signup is based on a simple idea,” Stern said in his call for signatures on the petition. “If a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It’s the best way to make sure workers have a full and free choice to join a union without interference or harassment.”

As he launched the petition drive he took a slap at “corporate greed.”

“We’ve just heard that Bank of America has earned billions in profits. Goldman Sachs made $38 million a day in the last three months. The EFCA is about fairness,” Stern said. “It's important that both the House and Senate consider majority signup. Workers want to see where Congress stands on a common sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.”

jwojcik @ pww.org

Deaths among Latino workers rise

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:15:00 +0000

The number of Latino workers who die on the job has risen 76 percent since 1992, even as the total number of workplace deaths has declined, federal statistics show.

In 1992 the number of reported Latino deaths on the job was 533. In a 2007 tally, the latest available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 937 Latino workers died while working.

Overall fatalities throughout the U.S. fell from 6,217 to 5,657 within the same period.

“I am particularly concerned about our Hispanic workforce, as Latinos often work low-wage jobs and are more susceptible to injuries in the workplace than other workers,” U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told USA Today. “There can be no excuses for negligence in protecting workers, not even a language barrier.”

In Texas, Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials investigated 50 Latino workplace deaths last year. OSHA has already investigated 21 fatalities this year, including the deaths of three Austin workers who fell 11 stories from a collapsed scaffolding in June.

Falling off roofs, run over by trucks or crushed under heavy machinery is all too common says the Austin-based Workers Defense Project. So far this year four deaths among Latino workers have been reported there.

More than half of construction-related deaths in Texas are Latino workers.

Some say the rise in Latino workers who die on the job points to the fact that more Latinos have joined the U.S. workforce over the last 10 years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Latinos represented 10.4 percent of the U.S. labor force in 1998. In 2007 Latinos represented 14 percent.

Labor leaders, immigrant rights advocates and Latino civil rights groups say too many employers exploit Latino workers and these workers often lack communication skills and proper training, which in turn leads to an increase in accidents and deaths.

When immigrants lack the support and rights guaranteed by joining a union, they are more likely to encounter hazardous jobs that are ultimately unprotected, these groups charge.

Immigrant workers without legal documentation are less likely to join a union, studies show. But it’s precisely these workers that are doing the most dangerous work for longer hours with little to no protections, immigrant rights leaders say.

All workers including immigrants should be guaranteed protections under the law regardless of what country they originally come from or what language they speak, and should receive proper training when it comes to risky jobs, critics say. The ability to join a union is a basic American right and every worker should be assured such protections, they add.

Labor leaders and allies say passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for workers to organize and join unions, will defend all workers when it comes to their safety and rights on the job as well as health care and other benefits.

plozano @ pww.org

NEWS ANALYSIS Getting closer than ever to majority signup

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:05:00 +0000

Speculation in the major media about the alleged “dropping” of majority signup from the Employee Free Choice Act, coming now as the nation is on the verge of radical labor law reform, must be viewed, at the very least, with extreme skepticism. The speculation tells us little about what is really at stake in the fight around the legislation.

For starters, the pundits make it seem that majority signup is something new when the exact opposite is the case. It has been the law of the land since the Great Depression.

The majority signup provision of the Employee Free Choice Act does not create majority signup or “card check,” as it is sometimes called. It simply guarantees that workers, not company propaganda or scare tactics, become the determining factor in deciding whether they are represented by a union. It says, in effect, that as soon as a majority signs those cards they get what they want — a union. That’s the way it was when the National Labor Relations Act, also called the Wagner Act, became law in the1930s.

Employers were able to amend that with the Taft-Hartley Act after World War II. Taft- Hartley enabled them to delay the workers’ choice with a so-called “secret ballot election,” whose terms the employers control. They use that delay period, which can last anywhere from a month to several years, to intimidate, harass and fire union supporters.

The Employee Free Choice Act’s majority-signup provision amends labor law again — this time to give back to workers, not employers, the choice of whether they will belong to a union.

A recent article in the New York Times, therefore, which said senators were “dropping” card check because of concern by some that elections are “fairer,” totally misses the point.

Some of what was missed was addressed by Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, who said, after the Times article appeared, “Majority signup is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace. The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process and we expect a vote on the majority signup provision (i.e. the provision that ends the bosses’ ability to delay recognition of the union) in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

More of what was missed in the Times article was later addressed by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, who said, “A bill will be signed into law this year giving workers — not their bosses — the choice about how to form a union.” (The issue, for workers, is just that: their choice, not the boss’s choice.)

There are many compromises on the table in Congress. The compromises are about how you make it the workers’ choice. Majority signup, unions say, is the best way. Some feel, however, you can have an election that really gives workers the choice — one that the companies can’t control. The result has been discussion of numerous paths to that goal including mailing of the authorization cards directly to the National Labor Relations Board, mailing ballots that say “yes” or “no” to union representation to the NLRB, requiring an election within five days, allowing the union onto company property to prevent anti-union company propaganda, forbidding companies from holding mandatory attendance at anti-union meetings, etc. All of these “compromises” are about finding a way to stop company subversion of long-standing U.S. labor law and about finding a way to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster against imminent radical reform of U.S. labor law.

The labor movement is not compromising on key principles: the choice must be made by the workers, and there must, after workers choose a union, be meaningful penalties for companies that break the law.

The pundits also focus far too much on speculation about the technical aspects of the legislative process surrounding the Employee Free Choice and not nearly enough on the profound implications of the struggle.

In December 2008 and January of this year, during the talks about bailouts for the auto companies, the Chamber of Commerce beat the drums about how “unions drove the auto companies off the cliff.”

Republican strategy memos at that time said, “Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor. This is a precursor to card check.”

Bill Samuels, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, said at that time, “I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation. This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly.”

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said, last October, when discussing the EFCA at a meeting with analysts, “We like driving the car and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.”

And then, there’s the part the pundits almost always miss. Even winning democracy and justice at the workplace is not the whole story with this legislation.

Big business understands that strengthening unions will push up wages and fix the busted economy in such a way that company profits are spread to places where companies would prefer they are not spread — to workers. The CEOs will get less. Corporate power will be reigned in. The new progressive majority in Congress will grow larger.

“Unions don’t spend money to elect Republicans,” Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said recently. “They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, this [the EFCA] would have devastating consequences.”

Sweeney’s prediction shows the confidence of the labor movement. The bill has majority support but just needs to get a vote on the Senate floor. An unprecedented campaign involving ground troops, money, advertising and mass rallies has reached locations across the country.

The pundits see this as a tit for tat fight between some labor leaders and some big business guys. It is so much more than that.

Labor and big business both know that passage of the Employee Free Choice Act means a far more organized working class. That, both know, means at the very least, that the economic and political reforms of this era will last a very long time and that those reforms can well signal the beginning of something even bigger.

jwojcik @ pww.org

Reports of the death of union card check still premature

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:24:00 +0000

A report in the New York Times today that says senators have “dropped” the majority sign-up provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is not accurate.

A spokesperson for Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, said that “no particular provisions of the bill have been agreed to and cannot be agreed to until there is an entire bill that can be agreed to.”

“As we have said from day one, majority signup is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace,” declared Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, this morning. He added, referring directly to the Times article, “The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

Majority signup has been the way workers designate a union as their representative since the Wagner Act was passed during the Great Depression. Taft-Hartley amended that after World War II to allow companies the option of requiring a “secret ballot” election if workers indicate, by signing cards, that they want to be represented by a union.

The “compromise” the Times described as “dropping cardcheck” is only one of numerous compromises that have been discussed over the last several months. The talks have been necessary because, despite what is now a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority for Senate Democrats, there have been a number of conservative Democrats who have had reservations about the majority signup provision.

The compromises have included a variety of ideas that involve everything from mailing the current authorization cards to the NLRB to actually voting up or down on a union and mailing the sealed ballot to the NLRB.

The majority signup provision which several senators feel could be traded off in order to achieve a filibuster-proof 60 votes would require employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards designating a union as their representative.

Those senators include Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

One of the People’s Weekly World’s labor sources said, “The thinking there probably is that if Pryor goes along with something, so will Blanche Lincoln and the rest of the ones sitting on the fence.”

In this latest of the many compromises discussed the majority signup provision would be swapped for other things the labor movement sees as critical to making it easier for workers to unionize.

Under the revisions, union elections would be required as soon as five days after 30 percent of the workers signed authorization cards. At present the campaigns sometimes span months, during which companies harass, intimidate and often fire pro-union workers.

A second revision would forbid companies, during that five-day period, from requiring workers to attend captive audience meetings where they are forced to listen to anti-union propaganda.

The third revision that is part of the “tradeoff” would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Union organizers, at present, are forced to talk away from their workplaces while employers can inundate employees with anti-union propaganda at will.

This latest compromise floated, as have all the others, retains provisions for sharply increased penalties against companies that violate labor law and provisions for required arbitration when companies, once a union is recognized, drag their feet on negotiating a first contract.

Labor has long said these provisions are key to labor law reform.

At present, even when companies fire people for union organizing the companies can get off the hook with as little as being required to promise not to do it again.

In Illinois workers at a major health care agency voted for a union three years ago but have still not been able to get their employer to negotiate a first contract

One aide to a union president said he would be “extremely disappointed” about the dropping of majority signup but said, “Even with this latest compromise being floated there would be a victory because unscrupulous outfits that don’t care about their workers will have a lot less time to pressure workers into voting against their own self-interests.”

An aide to a top AFL-CIO official said today, “What we must have is a bill that meets the basic bottom lines we have been pushing for. Workers must have a real voice and, of course, majority signup gives that to them. There must be real penalties against employers who break the law, and you must have a way to keep companies from stalling forever to prevent workers from winning a contract.”

Sen. Harkin himself has, on several occasions, assured labor leaders that he would oppose any move to gut any of the bill’s essential features. Those essential features, as far as he is concerned, are the same ones outlined by labor.

He indicated at the America’s Future Now conference in Washington in June that, in the event that there was a serious move to gut the bill, he had secured assurances from Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, that he would get an up or down vote on the original bill so “everyone can see where people in this Senate really stand.”

Conservative Democratic senators oppose the majority signup provision as “undemocratic,” saying that only a secret ballot election could provide workers with the right of privacy.

Some, of course, were influenced by the multi-million-dollar campaigns against labor law reform that have been mounted by the Chamber of Commerce and many businesses. Labor unions were critical of Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, for example, who they said was influenced by Wal-Mart in that state.

The two labor movement sources interviewed this morning were confident, however, that the votes will exist for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Business leaders continue to oppose the bill, particularly the provision that prevents them from campaigning against unions and the provision that makes it impossible to drag their feet during negotiations.

A Chamber of Commerce statement says, “It is just plain wrong that the government gets to say how much a company should pay and what type of benefits it should provide.”

The pro-business Workforce Fairness Institute issued yet another statement against the bill today, indicating that even a bill without majority signup would be unacceptable. “We see it as a hostile act to have arbitrators telling businesses what they have to do,” the statement reads.

The corporations say they are also opposed to the fast elections because they need the time to “educate” their workers about the “problems involved with unions.”

It is expected that the final version of the Employee Free Choice Act could come up for a vote in September, once health care legislation has been voted upon.

jwojcik @ pww.org

Workers picket Karl Rove's $1,000-a-plate Big Biz dinner

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:47:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS -- 'The Employee Free Choice Act is exactly what it says. A free choice for workers,' Ben Harmon, financial secretary for the greater St. Louis United Auto Workers union CAP Council, told the World.

Harmon, along with around 30 other trade union activists, was picketing a $1,000-a-plate Missouri Chamber of Commerce dinner for Karl Rove, a vocal opponent of workers' rights, on July 15 here.

Harmon, who used to work at the Chrysler North Assembly Plant in Fenton, Mo., has seen first-hand the 'intimidation, harassment and manipulation' workers have to go through when they try to form a union. He says 'the Employee Free Choice Act would bring balance' and help unions 'build density.'

'When union loose density, workers loose wages and benefits,' Harmon added. 'When unions grow, workers win.'

Margaret Phillips agrees. She told the World, 'Unions help put money back in workers' pockets. In this economy, we need people spending money. Unions aren't only just, they're good for the economy.'

According to the Economic Policy Institute, on average, union members make about $10 more per hour than their non-union counterparts. They also receive better benefits, health care and pensions, longer vacations, and dignity and respect on the job, something that can't be quantified in wages.

'Thousands of workers are fired every year for trying to form a union,' Jason Fedarow told the World. Fedarow, who works for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Missouri State Council, said, 'Karl Rove and William 'Bucky' Bush are up there spreading lies about workers and unions.'

He added, 'Unions play a role not only in the workplace, but also in other areas of struggle. If the union movement is stronger, the whole progressive movement benefits. That's the real reason they oppose the Employee Free Choice Act so much.'

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, along with other business associations, has been pushing the so-called 'Save Our Secret Ballots' (SOS) initiative.

On the legislative end, SOS went down in defeat as the Missouri legislature adjourned May 15. By refusing to take up the measure, House Joint Resolution 37, the legislature sent a clear message to the Chamber of Commerce.

However, the SOS ballot initiative is moving ahead, as paid canvassers are attempting to collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot in November.

According to Keith Tubbs, St. Louis regional organizer for the Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition, 'SOS would allow the status quo to continue. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow the pendulum to swing towards workers' rights.'

Tubbs added, 'Bush administration NLRB appointees found that over 30 percent of workers in workplaces trying to organize faced intimidation, harassment and threats. Others were unjustly fired. And this is with Bush appointees. Imagine how many workers were actually intimidated, harassed or fired.'

Congress is expected to vote on the Employee Free Choice Act this fall.

Missouri Jobs with Justice, SEIU and Pro-Vote organized the July 15 protest.

tonypec @ cpusa.org

Worker rights are civil rights 1,500 march in Arkansas for Employee Free Choice

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:29:00 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — With Central High School as a backdrop, the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act took center stage here in this southern state. About 1,500 people rallied and marched July 11 in what was considered the largest demonstration in the state in 20 years.

Arkansas has two Democratic senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and Lincoln is currently not on board in favor of the worker rights bill. Pryor just recently announced his support for the free choice legislation.

In addition to the main rally in Little Rock, workers and religious leaders rallied in Pine Bluff, Texarkana and Fort Smith, bringing the message of support for workers all across the state.

Central High School brought to life the July 11 rally’s theme “Worker Rights Are Civil Rights.”

Central High School was the focus of the entire nation in 1957. That was when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus tried to keep African American children from being admitted to the all-white school. One of the speakers at the rally here said that in 1957 Central High School was the “center of the universe for civil rights.”

The Little Rock Nine were also visible and in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Little Rock Nine were the courageous students who faced down the ugly face of racism and integrated Central High School.

Picking up on the history-making nature of the rally, Arkansas Times columnist John Brummet quipped, “The center of gravity today will be the historic capital city of a state long considered anti-union. That would be Little Rock…Never has so much labor muscle ventured at once into our little state.”

Arkansas is the home of retail giant Wal-Mart, which has been one of the national leaders of the corporate lobbying campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act.

In spite of 100+ degree heat, participants marched from Central High School to the steps of the Arkansas state Capitol.

Texas native, Arlene Holt-Baker, who is the AFL-CIO’s executive vice president and the federation’s first African American executive officer, said “Central High School is sacred ground for those of us who believe in justice.”

She highlighted the importance of linking civil rights with workers’ rights and “sending a message to the senators here in Arkansas. They were elected by working people to do the right thing for working people.”

Holt-Baker added, “There are advantages for women to be in a union. Wages are 30 percent higher for women who are union members.”

Arkansas state Senator Joyce Elliot, former president of the teacher’s union in Arkansas, added, “We need to make sure both senators know this is about free choice in a free country.”

Some 70 industrialized countries already have the right to organize unions and the rate of unionization is subsequently higher in South Africa, a number of European countries and China, rally speakers noted.

Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, thanked Sen. Pryor for his recent support on the Employee Free Choice legislation. He encouraged Sen. Lincoln to “do what’s right by working people” and to enable them to “negotiate their way into the middle class rather than borrow their way into the middle class.”

Stewart Acuff, special assistant to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, told the World he thought the rally was a “huge success!”

“We couldn’t be more pleased by the participation of elected officials and the faith community in Arkansas and people of good will from all over this state.”

Acuff was recently published in the Texarkana Community Journal explaining how the decline of workers’ bargaining power contributed to our economic crisis and how the Employee Free Choice Act will help bring about a sustainable recovery.

“The most effective and real economic stimulus to get us out of our economic morass is to restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain collectively. Given the real freedom to form unions and bargain collectively, workers will bargain for a fairer share of the wealth we create and a return on our productivity increases. We will bargain for a larger, stronger middle class. We will bargain for an exit ramp from poverty. We will bargain for spending and buying power to generate consumer demand. We will bargain for an economy that works for all,” Acuff, who is originally from Western Tennessee, wrote.

Martha Blackmon of the Arkansas Interfaith Worker Justice organization in Little Rock told the World, “This is one of the most important things the working class needs. It is very good to see so many people coming together to rally around this issue that affects us all. We need to get our senators on board to pass this act.”

Communications workers and AT&T strike Midwest deal

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:19:00 +0000

Nearly 20,000 AT&T workers in the Midwest will be voting on a tentative contract that their union, the Communications Workers of America, spent the last half year negotiating. The tentative agreement, reached yesterday, will be submitted to the membership for ratification.

The terms of the contract that expired April 4 were continued while negotiations took place.

The union won company agreement on pay and pension hikes in each year of the proposed three-year contract, as well as provisions that address cost-of-living adjustments. Workers will retain their health care benefits.

According to the union the agreement also includes “new transfer opportunities and broader earnings and job opportunities for some employees with sales titles and for technicians who install AT&T services in customers’ homes.”

CWA President Larry Cohen said the negotiations “reflected the current tough economic times and demonstrate again that the current health care structure in the United States is unsustainable. I’m pleased that AT&T will continue to work with us and others on comprehensive health care reform, so that companies like AT&T that provide quality health care are no longer penalized in this country.”

Negotiations continue in four other regions where contracts expired April 4.

Members of the Electrical Workers (IBEW) are also in negotiations with AT&T in Illinois and northwestern Indiana where contracts expired June 27.

CWA contracts in AT&T’s Southeast region expire Aug. 8, and negotiations in that region will begin on July 20.

Almost 125,000 workers are covered under the various CWA contracts with AT&T.

Read more about it: