People Before Profit blog

Today in women’s history: Suffrage supporters march in D.C

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:44:00 +0000

On March 3, 1913 supporters of the right of women to vote marched in Washington D.C., disprupting the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson.

When Wilson's train arrived in Washington very few people came out to greet him. Instead, hundreds of thousands were lining Pennsylvania Avenue, watching the women march. Suffragettes Alice Paul and Lucy Burns led the parade, demanding a federal suffrage amendment, gaining the vote for women.

The marchers wore costumes, with many standing on floats. One participant dressed as the Statue of Liberty and posed on the steps of the Treasury building for news photographers.

Opponents of the vote for women were among the crowds lining the sidewalk. Some hurled insults but some others spit at the women and threw lighted cigar butts at them. Still others slapped and even grabbed and beat women marchers. The police ignored the attacks.

Army troops from Fort Myers had to be called in to stop the violence after 200 women were injured.

Public outcry against the police and their failure to protect the women resulted in an investigation by the District of Colunbia and the ousting of the police chief.

The attackers ended up generating more support for the women's movement. In New York, the annual woman suffrage parade in 1913, held on May 10, drew 10,000 marchers, five percent of whom were men. 500,000 watched the paraders, cheering them on.

Photo: SEIU Local 1000

Navy hired company blocking union organizing rights

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:55:00 +0000

HOUSTON (PAI)- An Australian ship building company in Mobile, Ala., hired by the Navy is forcing workers to follow bad construction plans and, at the same time, is blocking their effort to unionize.

And the Navy's latest plan to reduce the number of new combat ships it orders may hamper the organizing drive of the AFL-CIO Metal Trades Department there.

Austal, the company that owns the yard, is already rabidly anti-union, both in the U.S., and in Australia, says Metal Trades Department President Ron Ault.

In an interview during the AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in Houston, Ault explained the department, taking over from the Sheet Metal Workers when the proposed bargaining unit, and the organizing drive, got too big, hopes to organize up to 3,000 Austal workers toiling to build the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

The catch is the Navy originally ordered 52 ships, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Feb. 24 the number would be cut to 32, as part of President Barack Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2015, which starts Oct. 1. There's a reason for the cut.

The LCS was supposed to be a multi-purpose easily maneuverable ship, Ault explains, at a cost of $250 million for each 400-foot 210-ton vessel. Austal outbid other firms by saying it could build the LCS based on a civilian ship, with single sheets of aluminum hull to guard it against enemy missiles and torpedoes.

A normal Navy combat ship has separate compartments to segregate water, should a hit occur, and a double steel hull, at least.

The plans didn't work. The ships now cost $440 million apiece. "It's more of a design issue" as the firm and the Navy keep reworking specs for the ship, Ault says.

Meanwhile, the workers, concerned over what Austal demands they produce, are organizing with MTD to protect themselves against the firm.

"The Austal workers are telling us they (management) makes the same mistake on ship after ship, following the old blueprints that are not accurate," Ault adds. "The ship fitters have become refitters."

"And management won't listen to the workers, who know how to fix production problems and safety and health problems" on the job, too, he says. The results? A lot of reworking of the ships and "a huge amount of scrap."

"They got 10 ships to build already" in Mobile "while we're building a union" in one of the most anti-union states in the nation, Ault adds. "If we train up this workforce and they start building high-quality ships, there's no reason the LCS couldn't succeed long-term."

"Shut up and keep working," is management's reply to workers' concerns, he says. And management profits from worker training, including turnover, because the state of Alabama subsidizes salaries and training pay - while charging the Navy full price for training and paying shipyard workers. But Austal has another "reply" to MTD.

The Navy is the sole customer of the shipyard, which means that federal funds - taxpayer dollars - are being misused not just in misbuilt ships, but to fund the firm's hostility to MTD's organizing drive, and to its own workers in Mobile.

That's reminiscent of what management at another Southern shipyard, Avondale just outside of New Orleans, did more than a decade ago when MTD was organizing the workers there. After MTD succeeded, Avondale's owner tried to sell the yard for scrap. Eventually, another firm bought it, to create other products, but jobs are down sharply.

So the MTD has spent its time not just on the organizing drive at Austal, but lobbying the Navy Department and lawmakers in D.C. on the Mobile, Ala., yard, its problems, and how the workers, if they had a voice on the job, could fix them.

It's also had to file safety and health complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and labor law-breaking complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. OSHA has already cited Austal for violations, while the NLRB probes are continuing. Austal brought in a union-buster law firm to battle MTD.

"The supervisors always know when the OSHA inspectors are coming," Ault says. "They tell the employees, the employees tell us. And they (Austal) still get cited. They're more arrogant than stupid."

The Navy has taken a hands-off attitude towards the workers' complaints at the shipyard. Sens. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, both R-Ala., show varying concern.

The Navy has told Ault that "when there's a conviction" against Austal for breaking federal law, they'll discuss conditions at Mobile. The local congressman supports keeping the LCS contract there, because it means jobs, and Shelby's position is little-known. "Sessions has not been hard-core; we've had a good dialogue" with his office, Ault says. "He says that if there is a union, they'll work with us."

Photo: Workers leaving the Austal shipbuilding facility after a 10-hour shift Nov. 7, 2013, in Mobile, Ala. (Mike Kittrell, al.com/AP)

Union leaders hail Obama infrastructure push

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:03:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (PAI) - Laborers Union President Terry O'Sullivan and AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department President Ed Wytkind hailed President Obama's push to get Congress to enact a $302 billion four-year mass-transit-highway construction bill. And AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka? "Bring it on!"

Obama launched his latest push for the legislation in a Feb. 26 speech in the Twin Cities. He lauded their new light rail line - and said the U.S. needs to upgrade its infrastructure. Under tea party sway, the House's ruling Republicans generally resist.

"The president wants to push for public and private infrastructure investment, we say bring it on. Union workers stand ready to meet the needs of the largest project you can think up," Trumka declared. "We didn't become the world's largest economy just by good luck. We made massive, smart investments in public goods at the right times. And we'll do it again. Our government and business leaders can invest smarter, and our workers can build it better."

Obama told his audience that he's focusing on infrastructure because time and money are running out. "If Congress doesn't finish a transportation bill by the end of the summer, we could see construction projects stop in their tracks, machines sitting idle, workers off the job," he warned.

His budget will rebuild transportation infrastructure responsibly "over four years, which gives cities and states and private investors the certainty they need to plan major projects. Projects like repairing essential highways and bridges (and) building new transit systems in fast-growing cities and communities, so folks who live there can get to work and school every day and spend less time sitting in traffic.

"All told, my transportation budget will support millions of jobs nationwide. And we'll pay for these investments in part by simplifying the tax code. We're going to close wasteful tax loopholes, lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs here at home, stop rewarding companies for sending jobs to other countries, and use the money we save in this transition to create good jobs with good wages rebuilding America. It makes sense," Obama declared.

Wytkind and O'Sullivan liked what they heard. O'Sullivan reiterated, however, that transportation projects should be paid for by a phased-in hike of the federal gas tax, which has stayed stagnant since 1993.

"For too long, the duct-tape approach by Congress has destabilized the construction industry, stalled projects, cost jobs and slowed our economy," he said.

"More discussion and debate is welcome, but ultimately there must be action as the facts remain clear: The average bridge in our country is 45 years old, dangerously close to the average 50-year lifespan. Typically, 25 bridges a year collapse in the U.S. Every dollar we invest now could save $14 later due to higher costs caused by further deterioration. Delaying investment costs motorists more than $324 a year each on wasted fuel and repairs.

"Adjusting the gas tax remains the most reliable, common-sense means of bridging the gap between needs and investment. The gas tax has been stagnant for two decades while needs and construction materials costs have increased. A phased-in increase will be enough to fuel our nation's Highway Trust Fund before it runs out of gas and allow our nation the time it needs to develop alternative, longer-term solutions, such as vehicle miles travelled fee, innovative financing tools and other solutions," he said.

"We're pleased the president has declared it a priority to fix the surface transportation funding crisis that is threatening our economy and American competitiveness," Wytkind added. Obama's unveiling of the $302 billion proposal "adds a sense of urgency to the debate as Congress and the president deal with the imminent insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund."

The trust fund, which gas tax revenues fuels, is projected to run out of money by August, right in the middle of construction season. It has around $9 billion left.

Wytkind said he took labor's views on infrastructure investment to a roundtable the GOP-run House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hosted. The panelists discussed enacting a new highway-mass transit bill, what it should pay for and how to pay for the projects.

"We echoed the view that the funding crisis must be fixed with a long-term legislative solution," Wytkind explained.

"Without new revenues, such as an increase in the federal fuel tax or through alternative tax proposals, our transit systems, highways and bridges will continue to decay and we will harm commuters and businesses, and idle millions of good jobs. We will direct our energy toward enactment of a bipartisan, long-term bill that creates middle-class jobs and protects the rights of workers."

O'Sullivan acknowledged the tea partyites and other foes would try to halt the highway-mass transit bill in its tracks, due to the tax plan. He dismissed their claims.

"While the knee-jerk reaction of some in Congress has been to reject adjusting the tax, abundant polling shows the American public will accept paying pennies more if they are assured the resources will make the roads, bridges and transit they use every day safer and more modern," he declared.

Photo: Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Facebook page

Government workers: "Raise our pay 4 percent, not 1 percent!"

Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:58:00 +0000

WASHINTON - The government should raise pay for federal workers by 4 percent in the year beginning Oct. 1, not by the 1 percent President Obama has proposed, the president of the federal government's largest workers' union says.

A 4 percent hike, says J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, would start to make up for the three years of federal pay freezes and increased pension contributions-without increased future pension payouts-that Congress imposed on federal workers, he adds.

Cox called Obama's 1percent pay hike, which will be in the proposed budget the White House will unveil on March 4, "pitiful." The budget, which the GOP-run House will ignore, reveals an administration's priorities for the coming fiscal year.

"A 4 percent raise is a modest, affordable increase that will help employees keep up with rising living costs, including higher retirement and healthcare expenses," Cox said.

Since 2010, federal workers have gone through to the 3-year pay freeze, last year's 2-week GOP-mandated government shutdown, furloughs due to sequestration, and the hikes in pension contributions and health care costs, he noted. The result is that their expenses rose by 9 percent since 2010, but compensation rose only by 3 percent. And federal workers have contributed at least $120 billion to deficit reduction-far more than any other group in the U.S.

"The president must send a strong message that inflicting pain on federal employees was a miserable failure," Cox said. "The administration punished federal workers in order to endear itself to those who despise the federal workforce, and it didn't work. If the president truly wants to put an end to austerity and the decline of the middle class, there is no better place to start than with his own employees."

Treasury Employees President Colleen Kelley said federal workers actually lost even more -- $138 billion. And when you track private sector pay and benefits through the employment cost index, private sector workers saw their compensation rise by 6.5 percent in the last four years, while federal workers got the 1 percent increase, she added. Kelley, whose union is independent of the nation's two labor federations, advocated a 3.3 percent hike for federal workers in the year starting Oct. 1. NTEU attracted top House Democrats to a Capitol Hill rally in the last week of February for a higher pay hike.

Besides the raise for federal workers, other budget sections leaked so far include Obama's decision to scrap lower future cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients. The so-called "chained CPI," which would have cut the increases, was in his budget blueprint last year. Unionists, fellow Democrats and the labor-backed Alliance for Retired Americans all campaigned against it - and all cheered when he dumped it.

Photo: AFGE march, February 12. AFGE Facebook page.

Why Missouri's assisted healthcare system is sick

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:22:00 +0000

Working as a union representative for SEIU Healthcare in the state of Missouri has been an educational experience I never expected. My union, the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas, represents all forms of service-based healthcare positions - from nursing home workers to hospital techs to homecare to childcare to building maintenance to housekeeping.

Coming from the building trades, I was used to a project-oriented worker management environment of good wages and a "do your job - payday is Friday" mindset.

At SEIU however, I've witnessed healthcare workers in a suffocating environment that is dubious from start to finish. Like most atrocities, the private, for-profit healthcare system is largely kept from public view and discussion.

Simply put, nursing homes are not hospitals and facilities are rarely specialized. Doctors are not present and nurses make up most of the administration, while the majority of the care provided is done by CNAs, Certified Nurses Aids.

Additionally, nursing homes are not just for senior citizens who need caretakers. They also include psychiatric patients, veterans, and those needing physical rehabilitation. And the current trend toward home assistance has created a "low census" (low population), which has led to a consolidation of residents, which in turn has done away with specialized wards.

Funding for nursing homes is another convoluted matter. For the most part, there are very few privately funded beds industry-wide in Missouri. The majority of residents' stay is paid for by Medicaid. In order to be eligible for Medicaid in Missouri you cannot earn more than $4,400 annually and must have no major assets or significant savings.

In other words, residents are forced to engage in a "spend down." They have to spend their savings and sell assets, in order to receive Medicaid. In fact, most nursing homes will charge higher rates during the spend down period until the residents' assets make them eligible for financial assistance.

That a majority of residents pay through Medicaid often creates an income ceiling for nursing homes, and unfortunately, a ceiling for employee wages. Generally, since necessary materials and overhead are nonnegotiable expenses and since management is not going to sacrifice pay, profitability can only be expanded by low wages or by degrading the quality of healthcare services provided.

The median income for nursing home workers in Saint Louis is about $9.50 per-hour, while the public perception is that nursing home workers are making $18 to $22 per-hour. The low wages for such a demanding, high-risk profession perpetuate high levels of staff turnover. And high turnover is often a catalyst for a toxic work environment, low morale, inexperienced staff and instability for residents.

Homecare is the fastest growing sector of the assisted healthcare industry, but homecare has a completely different set of pitfalls. Only last year did homecare workers gain the right to a minimum wage. Unsurprisingly, there has been considerable opposition to these workers earning minimum wage, or to organizing with a union.

Currently, the majority of homecare workers are nonunion. The state funds care by paying a for-profit staffing agency, which then provides the care givers. The assigned care givers operate independently and usually only talk with each other when and if they pick up their checks in person at the agency, making organizing that much more difficult.

The argument from right-wing, anti-union forces is: "Higher wages make it impossible for those in need to pay for services." The argument from democratic, pro-union groups is: "Higher wages will attract more highly qualified and skilled caregivers who provide better services to residents."

It should be repeated that most nursing homes are privately owned and are therefore a profitmaking institutions. However, the profit margin is usually in the 10 percent range. While most nursing home corporations own several to several hundred nursing homes, others are familyowned, where family members hold administrative positions and profit through generous salaries.

Therefore, the margin of profitability is expanded through a decrease in quality, care, low pay and bad working conditions. Dietary nutrition, building maintenance, staffing levels, modernization, environment, and level of service are all sacrificed to pad the nursing home's profit margins.

Furthermore, once residents are settled in a nursing home, the system makes it difficult to relocate to a different facility if they are dissatisfied with their conditions. And there is little incentive on behalf of nursing homes to improve conditions for the residents.

Obviously, most people do not find this a "romantic topic," but we all grow old. Where will we be housed when we can no longer care for ourselves?

Currently, SEIU Healthcare is creating a community roundtable to discuss this very topic. The planned roundtable includes union members, nonunion members, facility administration, advocacy groups, the faith community, other community groups, political leaders and the media.

Missouri is a political battleground over the expansion of Medicaid, which if successful could change the dynamic of assisted healthcare for the better. The growing mindset that "no one should profit from healthcare" offers a promise of a singlepayer system that would turn the current system on its head - for the better.

Perhaps the answer lies in looking at other nations who have a nonprofit system of healthcare. Whatever the answer, the current industry of assisted healthcare in Missouri is not healthy.

Nicholas James is a union representatice for SEIU Healthcare in Missouri.

Safeway takeover about more than just the price of stock shares

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:29:00 +0000

In the flurry of press coverage about the proposed takeover of Safeway by a private equity firm much attention has been paid to the need to increase share price and none has been given to the effect such a change in ownership will have on the workers at the grocery chain.

It is my privilege to be president of the union that represents Safeway workers in the western part of Northern California. Our union is familiar with the odds-on favorite to take over Safeway, the private equity firm, Cerberus.

Our members at Albertsons got a new boss in 2006, the same one apparently slated to take over Safeway. Due to the completely incompetent management of Idaho-based Albertsons, the chain was vulnerable to a takeover by Cerberus. For the next 10 years the new employer, modestly named after the mythological dogs that guard the gates of Hell, sold every piece of property
that wasn't nailed down and then some.

The results in terms of store closures, reductions in hours and rundown stores were miserable for the workers and shopping public alike. Our members at Albertsons experienced no upside to this corporate takeover and had they not been represented by the UFCW, the results would have been far more devastating.

Back in the 80's the movie Wall Street came out. The outfits that took over companies and jettisoned properties and workers with equal zeal back then were called corporate raiders, green mailers, arbitragers and leveraged buyout specialists. Their motivation was pretty clear - racking up huge financial gains for themselves and their deep-pocketed investors. Why build something when you can destroy it and reap a quick buck?

Today we have The Wolf of Wall Street. Hollywood's portrayal of the characters performing corporate takeovers has remained fairly consistent. Off the movie screen, however, corporate America has succeeded in recasting corporate raiders as job and wealth creators. No matter how this is recast or repackaged the bottom line is the hard-working men and women employed at takeover targets get the short end of the stick.

The name Cerberus comes from Greek mythology. This situation is reminiscent of a Greek tragedy where everyone knows what's going to happen but can't do anything about it. It would be best for the workers and shopping public if the greed and avarice of the Safeway and Cerberus negotiators led to the demise of this deal. If the takeover goes through the UFCW will do its best
to make sure that the Albertsons story doesn't repeat itself at Safeway.

Ron Lind is the president of Local 5 of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Photo: Cerberus, the private equity firm named after the Greek mythological dogs that guard the gates of hell, is trying to take over Safeway, the supermarket chain. Edublogs.org

OSHA goes after Ohio Bell for punishing injured workers

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:48:00 +0000

CLEVELAND (PAI) - On Jan. 4, 2012, Todd Fensel, a customer service specialist for Ohio Bell, went out in the snow to check his truck. He slipped on black ice and got hurt on the job. Now, as a result, his name's in a court case.

Snow covered the black ice and when Fensel slipped, he reached out to grab his truck to break his fall - and sprained his shoulder. He reported the fall to his Ohio Bell supervisor the next day, and to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's hotline for workers to report on-the-job injuries.

Ohio Bell, an AT&T subsidiary, investigated and, one month later, suspended Fensel for a day without pay. He's not alone. Here are three more examples:

John Parente, a customer service specialist at Ohio Bell's Brooklyn Heights plant, missed the last rung coming down a ladder in December 2011. He fell, crashed into a metal conduit box, fractured a rib and was out for six weeks. Though "no safety rule or" section of Ohio Bell ladder policy "was cited," the lawsuit says, Ohio Bell suspended Parente for a day without pay, too - three months later.

A dog bit Larry Locy, a customer service specialist in Columbus, while Locy was working in an alley in August 2012. He got his rabies shot and didn't miss any work - until Ohio Bell hit him with a one-day unpaid suspension.

Eric Adams, a premises tech, came to a Columbus customer's house in January 2013 to install a phone line. He climbed the wooden stairs, stepped on a piece of clothing and slipped and fell. Result: Bruises, contusions, a report to OSHA and, after a company investigation, yet another one-day suspension without pay.

After 13 such "blame the victim" suspensions without pay of workers who reported on-the-job injuries, the agency had had it. It's suing Ohio Bell in federal court in Cleveland for breaking federal law designed to protect whistleblowers.

The Ohio Bell case is one more example of how companies mistreat workers and then lie about it, especially where job safety and health is concerned. And such lies and intimidation are not uncommon, says AFL-CIO Safety and Health Director Peg Seminario, a 30-year veteran of the field.

It's also intimidating, she adds.

Now, however, the government may be moving beyond just lawsuits, especially since even if it beats Ohio Bell in court, the OSHA fines are small. Instead, the federal job safety agencies, OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, are exchanging information about new rules to protect the whistleblowers and prevent the firms from intimidating them.

Joseph Main, the Mine Safety and Health Administrator , whose agency is OSHA's counterpart for the nation's coal mines and other mines, is drafting a memo about potential regulations against companies to stop such retaliation before it starts.

Meanwhile, OSHA is really pissed off at Ohio Bell, especially when it disciplines workers for reporting on-the-job injuries that would be considered under the Yiddish term pitsilach - "little things."

"It is against the law for employers to discipline or suspend employees for reporting injuries," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, when his agency sued Ohio Bell on Feb. 10.

In several instances where Ohio Bell blamed the worker, the company said he violated its job safety standards, especially when around ladders. The court papers laconically note that Ohio Bell had no safety standards for workers around ladders.

"AT&T must understand that by discouraging workers from reporting injuries, it increases the likelihood of more workers being injured in the future. And the Labor Department will do everything in its power to prevent this type of retaliation," Michaels added.

Ohio Bell suspended 12 of the whistleblowers for a day each without pay, and suspended the other for three days without pay. All reported on-the-job injuries. Two of the injuries put the hurt workers out for several months each, but the others put them out a day apiece - if that. Several immediately returned to work after their accidents.

Five of the workers the company hit were in Columbus, two in Brooklyn Heights, two in Canton and one each in Akron, Cleveland, Gallipolis and Uhrichsville.

"The company alleged each employee violated a corporate workplace safety standard; however, OSHA's investigation found the suspensions were a result of workers reporting their injuries."

Photo: A lineman changes a transformer. Wikipedia (CC)

Faculty in tough negotiations at Harris-Stowe State U

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:22:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS - "It often feels like students are an afterthought and professors are an inconvenience," history professor Brian Elsesser told the People's World as dozens of union members and their supporters crowded into the Harris-Stowe State University (HSSU) Board of Regents meeting here Feb. 25.

The Board of Regents had recently presented their "last, best and final offer" to the HSSU-National Education Association (NEA), Elsesser's union, which has been in contract negotiations since last fall.

Elsesser, an assistant professor at HSSU who has worked there for 11 years, makes about $48,000 per year, or "about $30,000 below market, especially in a urban university," he said. With a wife and two daughters, Elsesser says he "moonlights" at nearby Webster and Fontbonne Universities due to HSSU's low pay - a option the HSSU administration hopes to eliminate.

According to Mark Abbott, HSSU-NEA president and 26-year history professor, HSSU professors are "severely underpaid in comparison to comparable institutions." The professors are asking for a modest 3 percent pay raise over two years.

HSSU faculty haven't had a general pay raise in six years.

However, the grievances of Elsesser, Abbott and the NEA go beyond bread-and-butter wage and benefit issues.

According to Elsesser, their negotiations have also centered on academic freedom and student retention. Abbott told the Regents, "I want to make the university and its faculty stronger - and I truly believe a collective bargaining agreement will do that."

At HSSU, a historically African American university, only about 18 percent of students graduate, which means about "82 percent of students pack on debt and then don't graduate," Elsesser said. Additionally, with a student population of about 1,300, the administration is bloated, he said. According to Elsesser, for every $1 spent on teaching, 75 cents is spent on administration.

The university is "not responding effectively to students" and is running the school into the ground due to mismanagement and administrative overhead, Elsesser said.

Faculty members say the HSSU administration has been "tone deaf" to faculty proposals regarding student retention. Elsesser and others have proposed "degree programs that fit the interests and needs of the students." Simply put, they say, current degree programs aren't working.

They also object to an administration-imposed program that professors are calling "tag and track," which requires professors to meet with every student in person twice per semester. Some professors may have 100 students "or more" enrolled each semester, said Abbott. "To require two office visits per student is simply not doable," he said. And requiring faculty to record office visits on a daily basis is "demeaning as professionals."

Elsesser calls the program a "forced and artificial relationship" that does not account for individual students' needs. Professors want to be able to "define how they relate to their students," Elsesser continued. "This isn't just about teaching. It's about being an organic part of the fabric of the university community, its intellectual life," not mandated meetings.

The administration also wants to increase professors' office hours from 4 to 12 per week, which Abbott calls "not feasible." Adding insult to injury, he says, "most faculty do not have an office with floor-to-ceiling walls or door," making it very difficult to "prepare lectures and class assignments."

The Board of Regents also wants to cap faculty sick days and bereavement leave, which Abbott calls "both regressive and punitive," and wants to impose "semester-to-semester" contracts - Abbott calls this "a slap in the face to existing faculty."

Elsesser, Abbott and other HSSU-NEA members reject the demand for semester-to-semester contracts, which would "make it impossible to attract new outstanding faculty to the institution" and cause "irreparable harm" to HSSU, its faculty and students.

According to Elsesser, during a closed session of the Feb. 25 meeting the Board of Regents agreed to "impose slightly modified versions" of five key sticking points: mandatory office hours, "tag and track," 10-year probationary period before tenure, capping sick days, and elimination of "moonlighting" (working at other universities to supplement the low pay at HSSU).

"Obviously, no one likes to have anything imposed on them," Elsesser added. "We would rather continue negotiating."

Last fall, the faculty at HSSU voted overwhelmingly - by 80 percent - to join the NEA, making it the first university in Missouri where faculty have unionized. It is a "mandate" we take "very seriously," Abbott said. In all about 50 faculty and staff joined the union at that time. Currently, the NEA is also working to organize adjunct professors, who earn as little as $1,650 per semester.

The NEA represents about 35,000 members in Missouri and about 3 million members nationally. The HSSU-NEA is planning ongoing actions with their community and labor allies.

Photo: History professor Brian Elsesser, left, and other Harris-Stowe State University faculty hold up signs as a university official speaks at the HSSU Board of Regents meeting Feb. 25. Tony Pecinovsky/PW

Union appeals Chattanooga vote loss, cites GOP lawmakers' interference

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:20:00 +0000

DETROIT (PAI) - The United Auto Workers have filed formal unfair labor practices charges with the National Labor Relations Board concerning their narrow loss in the union recognition vote at Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. But in what may be an unprecedented move, they said outside interference by Republican politicians illegally skewed the vote.

"A firestorm of interference from politicians and special interest groups threatening the economic future of the plant occurred just before and during three days of voting in an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board," the union said in a statement.

"Workers voted narrowly to reject representation, with a slim 44-vote swing. The objections detail a coordinated and widely publicized coercive campaign conducted by politicians and outside organizations to deprive Volkswagen workers of their federally protected right to join a union," the UAW added.

"The campaign included publicly-announced and widely disseminated threats by elected officials that state-financed incentives would be withheld if workers exercised their protected right to form a union," it added.

Outside labor law experts said the UAW's challenge to the outcome based on outside interference, as opposed to company labor law-breaking, has few precedents and little chance of success.

But the UAW cited 1977 and 1984 NLRB decisions setting aside union losses in recognition votes for just that reason. It wants the labor board to overturn the election results and order a rerun.

Technically, the union filed its case against Volkswagen, even though the firm made clear that it was officially neutral, if not supportive, of the type of labor-management relations UAW envisioned had it won.

But the NLRB filing barely mentions VW, except to point out that the firm's officials refuted the Republicans' and right wingers' claims in the election's final days.

The union lost the tally, after three days of voting, by a 712-626 margin in the 1,570-worker plant. The union and the company agreed that, had the union won, they would have established a joint labor-management "works council," similar to those legally required in VW's home nation of Germany, to run labor-management relations.

But while VW was neutral, Republican Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, GOP Gov. Bill Haslam, and the GOP state legislative majority, along with wealthy outside anti-union groups and individuals, were not.

The politicians threatened to take away state-sponsored tax breaks for further expansion in Chattanooga. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., declared that if the plant went union, it wouldn't get a new SUV assembly line. And, in not-so-subtle appeals to racism, billboards and radio ads tied the union to President Obama and gun control.

All that made an honest election impossible, the UAW's filing with the NLRB says.

Haslam and the state lawmakers were the main culprits, their complaint adds, before Corker jumped in on Feb. 12, after the voting had already started.

"The threats were very significant, because state financial incentives were a key component" that convinced VW to build in Chattanooga in the first place, the UAW told the labor board. The same incentives "are a key component" for any future VW decision on "expansion, full capacity utilization and heightened job security" in Chattanooga, the union added.

"The state officials' threats were a constant presence in the minds" of the workers as they cast votes, Feb. 12-14, UAW said. They were "a blatant attempt to create an atmosphere of fear" in the plant "to influence the outcome of the election and cause employees to vote against UAW representation."

Corker's coercion was a press conference where he declared VW assured him that if the workers went union, the plant would not get a production line for a new SUV. VW executives promptly said that wasn't true.

Corker, a former Chattanooga mayor, "issued his dual threat and promise of benefit to coerce the workforce" into voting against the UAW, the union's complaint to the NLRB says. "Of course, the only entity that can assure where a product is manufactured is Volkswagen itself," their filing laconically adds.

The cumulative impact of the political interference is that "no employee could vote without a well-founded fear that exercise of the franchise could mean that both their job security and the financial health of the plant was in serious jeopardy," UAW stated.

"Such an environment, foisted on VW workers by politicians who have no regard for workers' rights under federal law is completely contrary to the environment the National Labor Relations Act demands for union certification elections."

Photo: In this 2012 photo, an employee works on a Passat sedan at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. Erik Schelzig/AP

Labor’s Southern strategy finds a focus in Texas

Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:23:00 +0000

HOUSTON - Houston has been an important focus for Southern organizing because of its size; the fourth largest city in the U.S. and its demographics: 44 percent Hispanic, 24 percent African American and high poverty levels (based on the 2012 Census survey). Approximately 34 percent of Houston's children live in poverty. Overall, 22 percent of the people live below the official poverty level, with racial minorities the hardest hit: 28 percent of African Americans live below the poverty level and 29 percent of Hispanics live below the poverty level. This poverty exists in the midst of plenty, with Houston having one of the largest concentrations of millionaires in the world.

There is also a concerted effort to turn Texas from a red state into a blue state. An impediment is the racial gerrymandering done under the leadership of the GOP's Rep.Tom Delay in 2003, gerrymandering that violated the Voting Rights Act. The new Texas voter ID law cementrs voter repression even more firmly in place now throughout the state.

None of this has prevented labor, progressive allies, Democrats and others from working hard to turn the state around.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council met here the week of Feb. 17 in Houston, Texas. At a press conference, federation president Richard Trumka reaffirmed the AFL-CIO's continuing commitment to union organizing in the South. The 2013 AFL-CIO Convention passed Resolution 26: Resolution to Develop a Southern Organizing Strategy:

the AFL-CIO adopts as one of its top priorities a Southern Strategy that will include a long-term commitment to organize the South
the AFL-CIO strongly impress upon every one of its affiliates to adopt the same long-term commitment necessary to sustain a strong and viable workers' movement in the Southern Region of the United States.

The reasons it makes sense to organize in the South are many.

The U.S. labor movement has never successfully developed a concerted and coordinated effort to organize workers in the 11 Southern states making up the Southern Region, allowing the most conservative political forces in the South to operate without effectively being challenged by organized workers.

Corporations in the South have not only exploited Southern workers but have also been responsible for negative environmental impacts on many working-class communities, especially the African American, Latino, Native American, Asian, and poor white communities.

Billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives are being given to corporations at the expense of these struggling communities. The main strategy of these corporations in the South has been to divide the working class and the oppressed peoples in every way possible.

In addition, the South has emerged as a major player in the new global economy and has become a haven for U.S. manufacturing, foreign investments and finance capital. Because of this new role it is now playing a more important role in shaping U.S. labor and social policies. Anti-immigration bills are being introduced and are rapidly moving through Southern legislatures for the purpose of creating another source of worker exploitation based on race, ethnicity and fear.

Understanding that there have been shortcomings in labor's effort to organize the South in no way suggests that workers and unions in the South have been doing nothing about organizing.

Organizing campaigns in the South have too often been localized and not connected to a broader Southern or national movement, thius leaving workers more open to dicouragement.

A successful Southern organizing strategy must include Southern people familiar with local culture and customs.

Much discussed at the executive council meeting was the recent narrow loss of the UAW bid to represent workers at the Chatanooga, Tenn. Volkswagen plant.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam and Grover Norquist threatened the workers with job losses and blamed unionized workers for Detroit's woes. One important lesson here is the need to address labor union struggles in the South as a movement, where the full collective efforts of all union affiliates and the broader progressive movement, work in concert to overcome the right wing anti-union forces.

Here in Texas there have been quite a few successful union organizing efforts:

Thousands of ATT Mobile workers have been organized in the Houston area.
The Service Employees International Union's Justice for Janitors campaign won a major battle against efforts to misclassify and underpay janitors. The same union has been fighting for the rights of non-union low-wage fast food workers. The Teamsters successfully organized ramp workers at what was then Continental Airlines, now United.
The Texas State Employees Union has successfully signed up thousands of new memebers.
Some 4,000 nurses have been organized in the state by National Nurses United.
Working America, the AFL-CIO affiliate for non-union members, has signed up some 40,000 workers in Texas, including 23,000 in the Houston area alone.
Fe y Justicia, a Workers Center for low wage workers, led the passage of the Wage Theft Ordinance by the Houston City Council.
The Texas Organizing Project has mobilized thousands of people in support of Medicaid expansion in Texas and support for immigration reform with a path to citizenship. (Republican Governor RickPerry is denying more than 1 million Texans the right to Medicaid available under the Affordable Care Act.)

Mi Familia Vota has register thousands of Hispanic families to vote.

Registered nurses at Houston's Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center voted unanimously to approve a new collective bargaining agreement with the hospital, extending the only private union contract for nurses in America's fourth largest city.

Photo: Cypress Fairbanks RNs at contract ratification meeting (NNU photo)

Altoona nurses strike to put “Patients before profits”

Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:23:00 +0000

ALTOONA, Pa. - Hundreds of nurses, hospital workers and supporters hit the picket line in the bitter cold here, Feb. 11. That evening, they held a candlelight vigil. The nurses, members of the Service Employees union, SEIU, went on strike against UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Altoona, formerly the Altoona General Hospital. The SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania nurses say that UPMC rejected their proposals to improve staffing ratios, which is shown to improve patient outcomes, decrease the length of hospital stays, and increase patient satisfaction scores, among other issues.

The strike was to be for only one day, as the nurses were concerned about the welfare of the patients. However, the nurses and others walked the picket line again the next day. At one point, they marched to the hospital entrance but were prevented from entering. It was announced that day that a protest rally would be held at the UPMC headquarters in Pittsburgh and this was carried out. One nurse, who asked to remain nameless, said that the bosses might be trying to bust the union and that the sentiment of the strikers could be summed up in the slogan: Patients Before Profits.

After the one-day strike, many of the nurses were locked out for several days because of UPMC's contract with a scab agency, a union official said.

The nurses are now back at work, but without a contract. At this point, there has been no agreement between the union and the company. Still nurses and their supporters say it is uplifting to see the workers fight back against the bosses' offensive against their union and hard-won rights.

Meanwhile, locked out utillity workers here, employed by Pennsylvania electric power utility Penelec and its parent company FirstEnergy, continue to walk the picket line and are demonstrating that they will not back down.

Corrected 2/26/14: The nurses at UPMC are back at work following their one-day strike and subsequent lockout of many, but still without a contract. We apologize for incorrectly stating the current situation in an earlier version of this article, due to an editing error.

Photo: Altoona Nurses' strike. SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania Facebook page

Today in black history: First black U.S. Senator sworn in

Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:31:00 +0000

On February 25, 1870, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi was sworn in as the first black U.S. Senator.

Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, speaking that day on the importance of the event, said, "All men are created equal, says the great Declaration, and now a great act attests this verity. Today we make the Declaration a reality.... The Declaration was only half established by Independence. The greatest duty remained behind. In assuring the equal rights of all we complete the work."

Hiram Rhodes Revels was born to free parents in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on September 27, 1827. In an era when educating black children was illegal in North Carolina, Revels attended a school taught by a free black woman. Revels attended Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, on a scholarship from 1855 to 1857. He was one of the few black men in the United States with at least some college education.

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Revels helped recruit two black regiments from Maryland. In 1862, when black soldiers were permitted to fight, he served as the chaplain for a black regiment in campaigns in Vicksburg and Jackson, Mississippi.

After the end of the Civil War, the primary task of the newly elected Mississippi state senate was to fill U.S. Senate seats. In 1861, Albert Brown and future Confederate President Jefferson Davis both vacated Mississippi's U.S. Senate seats when the state seceded from the Union. On January 20, 1870, the Mississippi state legislature voted 85 to 15 to seat Hiram Revels in Brown's former seat. (They chose Union General Adelbert Ames to fill Davis's former seat.)

Nevada Senator James Nye underlined the significance of this event: "[Jefferson Davis] went out to establish a government whose cornerstone should be the oppression and perpetual enslavement of a race because their skin differed in color from his, what a magnificent spectacle of retributive justice is witnessed here today! In the place of that defiant man, who marched out to trample under foot the Constitution and the laws of the country he had sworn to support, comes back one of that race whom he would have enslaved forever to take and occupy a seat upon this floor." On the afternoon of February 25, the Senate voted 48 to 8 to seat Revels, who subsequently received assignments to the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Radical Reconstruction

After the end of the Civil War, Radical Reconstruction was a period of transformation of the state and society of the Southern United States from 1863 to 1877.

At the time there were radical progressive members of the Republican Party. Their coalition came to power in nearly all the southern states and set out to transform the society by setting up a free labor economy, using the U.S. Army and the Freedmen's Bureau. The Bureau protected the legal rights of freedmen, negotiated labor contracts, and set up schools and even churches for them. Lucy Parsons, a working-class leader and spouse of one of the Haymarket martyrs, worked for the Freedmen's Bureau.

President Ulysses S. Grant supported Radical Reconstruction and enforced the protection of African Americans in the South through the use of the Force Acts passed by Congress. The Enforcement Acts were criminal codes that protected African Americans' right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. The laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did not act.

Grant used the Force Acts to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. Founded by Confederate army veterans, Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement targeting freedmen and their allies. It sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against blacks and white Republicans.

Meanwhile Southern Democrats who were the right-wingers of the time strongly opposed African-American political power. They alleged "widespread corruption, excessive state spending and ruinous taxes." These Democrats who strongly opposed Reconstruction, regained control of the House of Representatives in 1874. The presidential electoral vote in 1876 was very close and confused, forcing Congress to make the final decision - Rutherford B. Hayes. The deployment of the U.S. Army was central to the survival of Radical Republican state governments; they collapsed when the Army was removed in 1877.

Reconstruction was a significant chapter in the history of civil rights in the United States; its destruction was a significant failure and setback for the country.

Leading authority on Reconstruction, Eric Foner stated, "What remains certain is that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure."

Suggested further reading:

Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880, by W.E.B. DuBois

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, by Eric Foner

A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration, by Steven Hahn

Photo: Hiram R. Revels. Wikimedia Commons.

Today in black history: Andrew Johnson impeached

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:55:00 +0000

On Feb. 24, 1868 the House voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States.

Although the impeachment battle focused primarily on the separation of powers between Congress and the president (Johnson tried to fire a cabinet official without, as the Tenure of Office Act stipulated, getting approval from the Senate) the real reson was majority opposition by lawmakers in Congress to Johnson's views on civil rights and Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War.

Johnson, as president, was a strong opponent of civil and political rights for blacks. He basically supported the return, after the Civil War, of the old prewar social and economic system in the South, except for the institution of slavery itself.

He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the Radical Republicans, fought for laws that would provide property to freed slaves and equal rights including voting rights. Property of large landowners who had backed the Confederacy would, under his plan, be confiscated and turned over to former slaves in 40-acre lots. Stevens wanted to break the back of the old slaveholding class and prevent it from ever returning to power in the South.

After Pres. Andrew Johnson vetoed the civil rights bill Congress moved more and more in the direction of the Stevens plan for Reconstruction and by June of 1867 it passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment declared that all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens. This included all ex-slaves. It also prohibited states from denying citizens equal protection unsder the laws.

During the summer of 1866 it became clear to anyone who doubted before then that the former slaves were going to need the protection of the federal government. On July 30 a multi-racial group in New Orleans tried to meet to discuss the issues involved and was attacked by a mob of ex-Confederate soldiers. Some 40, mostly black, attendees were killed. News of the "New Orleans Massacre" shocked northerners and proved to many that President Johnson was really an opponent of civil rights. Support for the Stevens position in Congress grew even more.

Under Stevens' leadership, Congress passed a reconstruction law. The law abolished all Southern state governorships set up under Johnson's program. In their place Congress created five military districts, each commanded by an army officer. Johnson vetroed the law but Congress overrode the veto.

In a series of follow-up laws Congress required each former Confederate state to hold new constitutional conventions made up of both white and black delegates. Any new constitutions coming out of these conventions had to include the right to vote for all black adult males. In addition Congress directed the southern states to ratify the 14^th Amendment before theey could apply for readmission to the union. Johson vetoed every one of these follow-up laws but Congress overrode each of his vetoes.

Then Congress began to pressure Johnson himself by passing the Tenure of Office Act, which forbade the president from firing his cabinet officials woithout Senate approval. Johnson decided to test the law and attempted to fire his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, for backing the Stevens plan for Reconstruction. On the basis of that firing, Congress voted on Feb. 24, 1868 to impeach Johnson. The impeachment later failed by one vote in the U.S. Senate.

Photo: Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Lincoln movie official site.

The Congressional Budget Office minimum wage controversy

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:33:00 +0000

You wouldn't know it from the media, especially Fox, but even including some National Public Radio hosts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the minimum wage sided with supporters of increasing the federal wage floor.

The only major exception -which has nonetheless dominated media coverage - was the impact on employment. Here, its is hard not to question the credibility of CBO Executive Director Doug Elmendorf, who at one time had a decent reputation as an economist, but then accepted the role of chief economic spokesperson for the Romney presidential campaign, which quickly lost all connection with the truth.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka captured a key aspect of this controversy: "Every time momentum builds for lifting wages, conservative ideologues say it will cost jobs. Every time they've been dead wrong. Being consistently wrong and not caring about workers are the only two things conservative economists can be counted on for. This is more of the same noise. They want subservient, scared workers whose suffering will expand their stock portfolios. Our country is finally poised to lift millions out of poverty and make our country work for the people who work. Let's raise the wage and we'll prove the CBO wrong again."

Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.

The CBO report is mostly positive on raising the minimum wage. Why?

The minimum wage will directly benefit tens of millions of workers. As Economist John Schmidt of CEPR writes: "Opponents of the minimum wage like to cite Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers that suggest that there are only about 1.6 million minimum-wage workers, ignoring that this figure refers only to worker who earn exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. CBO, instead, estimates that about 16.5 million workers would receive a wage increase because the CBO correctly factored in that millions more workers who earn between the current federal minimum wage and the new proposed level of $10.10 would also receive a pay increase."

The CBO estimate of the total direct beneficiaries is almost identical to the 16.7 million worker estimate produced by the Economic Policy Institute. The minimum wage will indirectly raise the wages of millions more.

Raising the bottom always leads to restructurings that reach all the way up the wage and salary scales of every economic sector. It' s simple -more overall income goes to labor, than to capital. Interesting the even liberal "capitalists", like Bill Gates, are in solidarity with their billionaire brethren opposed to raising the minimum wage. Opponents also argue that the typical minimum wage worker is a suburban teenager living with middle or upper class parents. However, the CBO concludes, according to Schmidt, "that only 12 percent of these low-wage workers are teenagers, 10 percent have a college degree, and more than half (53 percent) work full time. "

The minimum wage will reduce poverty.

The CBO report concluded that an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, a number far lower than the 4.6 to 6.8 million people for whom economist Arindrajit Dube claims would be lifted out of poverty after full implementation.

The CBO also accepted the elementary Keynesian argument that increasing the incomes of low-wage workers - who tend to spend a very high share of what they earn - will act as a stimulus to the broader economy.

CBO writes: "On balance, according to CBO's analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services ... [by shifting] income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus ... overall spending increases."

Whenever efforts to increase the minimum wage gain momentum, opponents suggest expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) instead. The tax credit, it is true, targets working poor families with, in effect, a government subsidy. But its really a subsidy to the employer, allowing him to pay a lower than fair market wage at the taxpayer expense.

There is every reason to support both approaches, really. The tax credit approach targets the right people broadly speaking, but the minimum wage sets ceiling on government subsidies for employer responsibilities to pay a fair wage. "The two policies work well together," writes Schmidt. "The EITC [tax credit] raises wages for low-income workers to where a minimum wage of the same level would likely cause job loss. Meanwhile, the minimum wage ensures that the benefits of the EITC go to workers, not employers."

CBO acknowledges these important issues, and concludes: "An increase in the minimum wage would shift some of that benefit [that accrues to employers, rather than to workers] from employers to workers by requiring the former to pay the latter more."

Photo: AP

Union wins recognition vote among federal park workers

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:30:00 +0000

By a 91-9 percent margin the Treasury Employees won union recognition among 1,300 National Park Service workers in the Washington, D.C., area.

"We look forward to developing an effective relationship with NPS management on behalf of National Capital Region employees," said union President Colleen Kelley.

The workers include rangers, gardeners, and skilled trades workers.

"An agency with a workforce that is treated with dignity and respect, along with adequate resources and personnel, will be an agency that is well-equipped to meet its mission," said Kelley, whose union is unaffiliated with labor federations.

After the Federal Labor Relations Authority certifies the vote and the workers select a bargaining committee, negotiations will start on a first contract. Like other federal workers, their bargaining does not include wages and benefits.

"NPS-NCR employees looked to our record representing NPS headquarters employees, as well as our Customs and Border Protection unit and they saw our familiarity with the kinds of issues that interest and concern them, including scheduling, career ladder advancement, uniforms, job reassignments and promotions," Kelley said, "NTEU looks forward to working with them to improve their work lives."

Photo: National Treasury Employees Union Facebook page

Unions fight airline plan to enter U.S. on the cheap

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:37:00 +0000

HOUSTON (PAI) - Just call it airborne theft of flight attendants' and pilots' jobs and pay.

In a scenario U.S. seafarers are familiar with, Norwegian Air International wants to become a "flag of convenience" air carrier into the U.S., by getting a flight certificate from Ireland, hiring flight crews from Thailand and covering them with Singapore's labor laws, or lack thereof -- all at rock-bottom rates that would drive other carriers out of business and other airline workers out of jobs.

"Flag of convenience" cargo ships, chartered in nations such as Panama, underpay - or don't pay - their crews, work them under impossible and unsafe conditions and, when they run out of money, often abandon the crews in U.S. ports.

Their cheapness also drove most of the maritime trade out of U.S. flagging, because the firms don't want to meet U.S. labor laws, wage laws, worker comp laws and safety and health laws. Only two percent of the cargo carriers docking at U.S. ports are U.S.-flagged, data shows. Many of those U.S. carriers, however, are unionized.

Norwegian wants to fly on the cheap and pay on the cheap in the U.S. Its website right now advertises 1-way fares from London's Gatwick Airport to almost anywhere in Europe for between 30 and 40 British pounds, or less than $75. The site says Norwegian wants to fly to Florida, New York City and Oakland.

But to be an "airline of convenience," Norwegian needs U.S. government permission to land here, and that's where the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department comes in.

TTD and its member unions are lobbying the Federal Aviation Administration to deny U.S. landing rights to Norwegian Air, department President Ed Wytkind said in an interview during the AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in February in Houston. The lobbying began more than six months ago.

And earlier in February, TTD and other airline and transportation unions in the U.S. and Europe met in Oslo, Norway's capital, to carry the campaign to the base of the rogue airline, and to formulate united strategy to stop it.

"We're focused like a laser beam on its violations of existing law and agreements" including an Open Skies pact between the U.S. and the European Union, he adds. If the Obama administration and the European Union OK Norwegian's scheme, "This could be a really significant tipping point" in the airline industry, he says.

Approval of Norwegian's application "would open the floodgates for them to scour the globe for the cheapest labor and the most favorable laws." Other carriers would have to match Norwegian, and workers would suffer as a result.

TTD has picked up three heavyweight allies: The three big U.S. airlines, United, Delta and American. "The last thing Delta wants to do is pay its flight attendants $500 a month. That'll distort the marketplace," Wytkind says. The three air carriers have also filed formal protests against Norwegian's application to enter the U.S.

The fight over Norwegian also has larger implications for U.S. workers, because the Democratic Obama administration is negotiating a so-called "free trade" treaty with the European Union, one of five such pending pacts.

A federal law to implement the U.S.-EU pact is possible only if Congress gives President Barack Obama fast-track trade promotion authority, with virtually no safeguards for worker rights. Fast-track would bar congressional changes, limit debate and require only one up-or-down vote in each house. Labor strongly opposes it.

The EU in general has much stronger worker rights than the U.S., "and we very vigorously fought for human rights and labor standards in" the Open Skies pact "and against letting firms use the benefits of that agreement to erode labor standards on both sides of the Atlantic," Wytkind explains.

"This Norwegian Air case clearly does," and thus is a warning shot about EU enforcement -- or non-enforcement -- of its own labor standards, he warns.

Photo: Norwegian Air

From wealth gap to voting rights, labor takes a stand

Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:09:00 +0000

HOUSTON - From opposing "fast-track" trade treaty bargaining authority to restoring and expanding voting rights, the AFL-CIO Executive Council committed the labor movement to specific stands on a select group of high-profile issues.

The union leaders, meeting Feb. 18-19 in Houston, put those stands into council statements, urging lawmakers and other officials to enact programs and laws, or, in fast-track's case, defeat a move to let the president bargain trade pacts behind closed doors, without worker rights, with no labor, congressional or citizen input and with no changes.

But its biggest resolution was a sweeping one aimed at everyone in the nation: The AFL-CIO declared that its prime goal would be to lessen economic inequality-the gap between the rich and the rest of us. And it demanded a "great national conversation" on the issue "that should not be diverted by tokenism or distractions."

Other statements dealt with the Volkswagen workers' fight to unionize, blasting tax incentives that encourage corporate outsourcing of jobs and for a pact with China that would protect actors' and recording artists' rights and royalties. Excerpts of key specific stands included:

Economic inequality: "The public understands there is something wrong with our economy when almost all (95 percent) of the income gains since the end of the Great Recession have gone to the wealthiest 1percent...Before we can tackle the structural causes of inequality, we have to understand what they are. Inequality did not just happen. It was not an accident or an act of God. It was the predictable result of decisions by people with power in America over the past generation. The key decision was to use the power of government to help corporate America push down wages by destroying workers' bargaining power.

"Any serious effort to attack the structural causes of inequality must begin with restoring the individual and collective bargaining power of all workers. Wage and income stagnation is a problem affecting the 90 percent, not just the poorest people in America, though it is the poorest whose lives are most blighted by falling real wages.

"If we care about economic inequality, we have to raise wages and living standards across the board. It's that simple. If we care about a healthy economy no longer plagued by financial booms and busts, we have to raise wages and living standards. If we care about a healthy society, with a sense that we are all in this together, we have to raise wages and living standards. Broad-based wage growth is the defining challenge of our time."

That broad-based growth starts, but does not end, with raising the minimum wage. It includes raising the tipped minimum wage, enacting living wage and paid sick leave laws, aiding victims of wage theft and bringing farm workers under wage laws, the statement said.

Most importantly, the statement adds, "every worker should be allowed to bargain for better wages and better living standards."

"Raising wages requires that workers' voices not be weakened, and that means defeating state-level legislative attacks on workers and our unions, such as right to work for less and paycheck deception.

"Raising wages requires a more effective labor movement," the fed adds. It said that last year, the AFL-CIO decided to create "stronger and more durable bonds with our allies at the local, state, and national levels" and encourage progressives in both major parties. "Focusing on wages, quality jobs and a thriving middle class will help us achieve these goals," the statement concludes.

Trade: The Obama administration is negotiating five trade treaties, with one, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with 11 other "Pacific Rim" nations the farthest along and the most harmful. Fast-track would let it jam all of them through Congress.

"Fast-track is an undemocratic, unaccountable process used to shield agreements under negotiation from influence by the American public and to virtually ensure trade deals that displace jobs, suppress wages, shutter factories, devastate communities and decrease worker bargaining power-all while increasing corporate profits and corporate influence over our economy and other economies worldwide," the council said. It "will increase rather than reduce income inequality."

The statement said "the real culprits" for both fast-track and failed economic policies "are powerful corporations that seek to control the global economic agenda with the clear purpose of lowering wages and diminishing the economic security of working people. Too many politicians support that agenda, choosing capital over labor, property rights over human rights and tax cuts for the wealthiest over investment in our future."

After 30 years of this tilt, "When you're in the hole, it's time to stop digging. It is time to chart a new course," the fed said.

"The AFL-CIO is committed to being part of a growing, worldwide movement of labor unions and civil society pushing back against this corporate-rights trade model... We will continue our domestic work to oppose the outmoded fast-track policies enshrined in" pending legislation "and to hold elected officials accountable for creating trade policies that benefit families who work."

• Voting rights: Blasting the U.S. Supreme Court for "ripping a hole in the Voting Rights Act," the federation endorsed legislation to recreate "pre-clearance"-federal approval beforehand-of voting changes in four states with a history of racist voting discrimination: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. Other states could be added later, as they fail to meet the measure's new standards for non-discrimination.

But while the fed endorsed the bipartisan Voting Rights Act Amendments bill, it said the drafters did not go far enough. The AFL-CIO declared that so-called "Voter ID" laws-pushed through GOP-run state governments-should become immediate voting rights act violations.

Voter ID laws make it hard to register and vote, curb early and absentee voting, erect tough registration requirements, limit non-partisan voter registration drives and even let states limit polling places. They're designed to throw women, minorities, students, the elderly and workers off the election rolls.

"Voter suppression laws could be challenged successfully without having to prove discriminatory intent in passing the laws. The legislation improves transparency about voting changes, requiring wide notice of voting changes made within 180 days of an election. The legislation continues and strengthens the federal observer program, critical to combating racial and language discrimination at the polls," the resolution adds.

Increasing access to and quality of post-secondary education. The AFL-CIO called on the federal government to shift most college aid from loans back to grants, and demanded states restore cuts to colleges, especially community colleges. It also said that 70 percent of college faculty now lack tenure-adjuncts and research and teaching associates who must often teach two or three jobs to keep alive. That robs the instructors of job security and the students of classroom quality, the fed said. With a college education increasingly needed to get ahead, quality instruction is vital.

"Disinvestment and a lack of commitment to instruction has left a majority of college educators without the professional supports they need to provide the highest-quality education to their students. In short, students are paying more, whether out of pocket or through student loans, and receiving less," the fed said.

No tax incentives for outsourcing. "Congress demands repeated sacrifice from working people," the fed said. But people "want a system that rewards those who produce and employ here, not those who abandon America.

"That's why the labor movement stands for a simple and clear standard: The tax laws must not in any way encourage investment in foreign countries rather than the United States. That means the offshore profits of U.S. corporations must be taxed at the same rate and at the same time as their domestic profits. There is no economic or political justification for giving corporations a tax incentive to shift jobs and income overseas.

Photo: AFL-CIO 2014 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Civil and Human Rights Conference, San Antonio, Texas, January 20. Alan Pogue, photographer. AFL-CIO flickr.

Unions-workers' centers unity results in wage and safety wins

Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:20:00 +0000

HOUSTON - Labor unions, including some that did not at first like the idea, say that hooking up with nonunion workers' centers has helped them make gains, including growing their own memberships.

The push for unions to reach out to workers' centers and other allied organizations was given a formal endorsement at last September's convention of the AFL-CIO, held in Los Angeles. The new approach was considered a do-or-die matter for both unionized and nonunionized workers, all of whom have been under attack by the right wing in this country for many years.

The effects of the decision to move in a new direction were evident here this week at the annual winter meeting of the federation's executive council. In a room that would, in the past, have been reserved for union presidents, leaders in the fight for social justice, both union and nonunion, were sitting around the same table.

"I wasn't convinced at first," said Mike Cunningham, president of the Texas Building Trades. "I used to see construction workers on nonunion sites as a threat to our jobs but it started to change when I saw some of the things being done by the Texas Workers Defense Project." The Texas Workers Defense Project is a group of largely immigrant workers fighting for their rights on construction and other projects in Austin.

"There was a protest at a construction site and I walked by 141 pairs of empty construction boots lined up on the sidewalk, each pair representing a nonunion worker who had died on a construction site in Texas. These men and women are us," I said to myself. "These are my brothers and sisters. We owe them a commitment to work together."

Cunningham then described how the building-trades unions, the Texas Workers Defense Project and other workers' centers got together and marched on the state legislature in Austin to demand an end to wage theft and to demand stronger safety laws.

"It was a big demonstration, people marching together, carrying 141 coffins, one for each worker killed," he said.

"I'm proud to say our unity resulted in a victory," Cunningham added. The legislature passed a law fining any contractor who wrongly classified a worker as a contractor in order to pay that worker a lower wage than would otherwise be required. "It was a big victory under our belt and we're not done with this working together by any means," said Cunningham.

Greg Casar, political director of the Texas Workers Defense Project, described how his group's collaboration with the building trades unions has resulted in what may seem like small victories to many but are of enormous importance to workers.

"We didn't even have the right to take breaks to drink water as we worked in the hot sun," he said. "Now we do. Imagine, a contractor who gets big tax breaks from Texas denying workers even their most basic human right to a drink of water."

Casar said association with the organized labor movement has also brought workers improved health and safety conditions and regularized training. "And we all share in that victory on the fines for employers who steal our wages," he said.

There are some 600,000 people employed in the construction industry in Texas, about half of whom are undocumented immigrants.

James Hasalam, director of the Vermont Workers Center, was also among the participants at the AFL-CIO executive council deliberations here. The Vermont center started as a group of low-wage workers who established a workers rights hotline in 1998. In 2001, they hooked up with Jobs with Justice and they began a "healthcare is a human right" campaign to push for free universal healthcare in Vermont. In 2011 they began a partnership with the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees to push for their healthcare initiative and to unionize healthcare workers.

"Since then we have gotten 7,000 new AFSCME members in Vermont," said AFSCME President Lee Saunders. We could not have done this without our partnership with the Vermont Workers Center."

Also among those on the floor at the executive council session here was Richard Shaw, secretary- treasurer of the Houston Central Labor Council, who said his group has developed a partnership with Houston's Faith and Justice Workers Center. Laura Boston, that group's director, also at he AFL-CIO meeting, said, "We have 700 members-workers who first came to us because they had suffered one or another form of wage theft."

Joint rallies held by her group and the Central Labor Council resulted in passage of a wage theft ordinance here in Houston, whereby the city will not hire and will fire any contractor found to have stolen wages from his or her employees. "This was a big boost to us," said Shaw, "because our unions have been going after these unscrupulous contractors for a long time."

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said it was only natural that alliances between unions and workers centers would succeed.

"It's simply people who represent and fight for workers' rights taking care of one another. Brothers and sisters just do that," he said.

Photo: Protest in front of site where a worker was fired for reporting a safety violation. Texas Workers Defense Project Facebook page.

Labor announces plan to unseat 5 GOP governors

Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:50:00 +0000

Editors' Note: A large number of anti-union websites have been generating misleading reports about labor's plans for the 2014 elections that are not accurate.

The headline on an earlier version of this story read, "Labor to spend $300 million to unseat 5 GOP governors." While the figure for expected spending on the 2014 elections by the labor movement is accurate, the impression that all the money will be spent on just the gubernatorial races is not. As the article points out there are five gubernatorial battleground states that will be the main focus of labor's election effort but Senate and House races will also be included.

Mike Podhorzer, the AFL-CIO's political director, said he expected labor's spending in the 2014 elections to exceed what labor spent in 2010 and that that figure, based on public filings, was, for all unions, about $300 million.

It should also be noted that right wing bloggers are trying to leave the impression that the AFL-CIO is some type of "Big Labor" outfit, unaccountable to no one but itself and that it can just pull $300 million out of a hat and throw it at whatever election race it feels is appropriate. When the Peoples World uses the term "labor" in the context of this article it is referring to all unions and all union members. Funds for political action are generated by millions of union members in countless local unions all across the country, not be a few leaders plotting somewhere behind the scenes.

HOUSTON - At least $300 million will be spent by unions this year to unseat five GOP governors up for reelection in November, to prevent a Republican takover of the Senate and to defeat a number of House Republicans.

The governors targeted for defeat are Florida's Gov. Rick Scott, Michigan's Gov. Rick Snyder, Ohio's Gov. John Kasich, Pennsylvania's Gov. Tom Corbett and Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker.

The announcement of the list of gubernatorial battleground states was made at a press conference here this morning by Lee Saunders, chairman of the AFL-CIO's political committee and by Mike Podhorzer, the federation's political director. They made the announcement outside a meeting here of the AFL-CIO executive council which has been deliberating in Houston since Tuesday.

After the announcement, when Podhorzer was asked to discuss how much money labor would spend on the effort, he said he expected the dollar amount to exceed what unions spent in the 2010 midterm elections. The amount spent then, he said, was about $300 million.

Saunders and Podhorzer also said that maintaining Democratic control of the U.S. Senate would be an aim of the labor movement in the coming midterm elections. Podhorzer said that labor will put resources into eight states where Democratic incumbents face challenges and two states where Republicans can be defeated. He identified the eight states where labor would defend incumbent Democrats as West Virginia, Montana, Michigan, Louisiana, Iowa, Alaska, Arkansas and North Carolina and two states, Kentucky and Georgia, as the states where it was possible to defeat incumbent Republicans. (Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate, for example, faces a serious challenge in Kentucky from Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes.)

Although no one here is saying that labor is giving up on wresting the House from Republican control, "the House is a real challenge," Podhorzer said. "Polls show that the generic House Democratic candidate is, at this point, one percentage point ahead of the generic Republican. To have a shot at ending Republican control of the House, due to the outrageous gerrymandering, we'd need to be 7 points ahead. But we're not giving up on making gains, particularly in the battleground states."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said her union was fully in support of the decision to focus on state races.

"In many ways it is difficult to get anything done in Washington," she said. "In states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida a war is being waged against the people and their standard of living. The states are where the people live and we want to focus on where the people are."

Labor intends to bring into those state level races a sharp focus on the issue of wages.

"All of our work in these elections," Trumka said, "will be done in the framework of raising wages. We've just had polling done that shows conclusively that voters see their lives and political leaders through the lens of what those lawmakers are doing to raise wages and strengthen their livelihoods."

Trumka was referring to a Hart Research poll done from Feb. 8 to 11 in the five gubernatorial battleground states selected by the labor movement.

Dissatisfaction with the economy, especially stagnant incomes, the poll found, is widespread in the five states and is weighing down approval ratings for GOP governors. Three in five voters say they are dissatisfied with the economic situation in their state. Those who are very dissatisfied outnumbered the very satisfied by a five to one ratio (25 percent to 5 percent).

The poll shows the issue of raising workers' wages could play a major role in 2014 races with Democrats standing to gain considerably if they give the issue a prominent place in their campaigns.

Across the five battleground states, 61 percent of voters feel that it should be an extremely important priority for the governor and legislature to "make sure that people are paid enough to support their families (saying 9 or 10 on a scale of 0-10). This is a far higher priority for voters than conservatives' priority of reducing taxes.

Labor leaders gathered here this week are saying that there is a chance that the labor movement will do a lot better in the 2014 midterm elections than in did in the disastrous 2010 elections that saw the tea party swept into power in many districts around the country. " It's no small thing if we help remove those five governors and hold the Senate," said Podhorzer. "And we now have an infrastructure of connection to all kinds of movements that we didn't have then (in 2010)," Podhorzer said. "In 2010 we were talking almost exclusively to members of unions. This time, labor and its allies have learned a big lesson. We are all working together on this election, and we are talking to everyone, not just union members."

Photo: Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker is one of five GOP governors that the labor movement has targeted for defeat this year. AP

Correction: The headline and lead in an earlier version of this article has been changed to reflect more accurately that the money unions plan to spend on 2014 elections will include governors, Senate and House races. (See editor's note at beginning of the article.)

AFL-CIO calls for restoration of the Voting Rights Act

Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:36:00 +0000

The AFL-CIO's executive council, which is meeting in Houston, Texas this week, unanimously passed a resolution Feb. 19 calling for the passage of strong federal legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act. The text of the resolution follows:

"The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a centerpiece of our democracy that has played a crucially important role in helping to enforce the Constitution's guarantee that "the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

"Last year's decision by a bare majority of Supreme Court justices in Shelby County v. Holder ripped a gaping hole in the Voting Rights Act. The court struck down the coverage formula that required some cities, states and jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination to obtain prior federal approval for proposed election changes. Without this preclearance requirement, jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination are able to pass and implement laws that suppress the vote-an affront to the basic American ideal that every citizen should have the right to be heard through his or her vote.

"Now, a bipartisan group of members of Congress have come together to introduce legislation-the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014-to provide for a new formula for the act's preclearance provision. Four states-Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana-would be covered immediately, and other states or localities could be added if they are found to have committed a threshold number of Voting Rights Act violations. Voter suppression laws could be challenged successfully without having to prove discriminatory intent in passing the laws. The legislation improves transparency about voting changes, requiring wide notice of voting changes made within 180 days of an election. The legislation continues and strengthens the federal observer program, which is critical to combatting racial and language discrimination at the polls.

"At the same time, the legislation has shortcomings that need to be addressed as the legislative process moves forward. The standards for what "counts" as a Voting Rights Act violation need to be broadened, and discriminatory voter ID laws should fully count as a Voting Rights Act violation. We urge the sponsors to strengthen the legislation and address these flaws.

"The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 represents an important first step in restoring the promise of the Voting Rights Act-an act whose mission and purpose remain as urgent and vibrant as ever.

"The labor movement has a long history of supporting voting rights and the Voting Rights Act. We will continue to educate union members about the importance of voting rights and to mobilize union members in support of positive voting rights reforms. We will continue to advocate, along with our allies at the state and federal levels, for improvements to our voting laws like same day registration, expanded early voting, voter registration modernization, and restoration of voting rights, that expand opportunities for voters to participate in our democracy. And, along with our allies, we will continue to fight voter ID legislation and other voter suppression laws that restrict the right to vote.

Photo: The labor movement seeks to end situation where minority voters have to wait in line for hours to vote. AP