Anti-Bargaining Bill Clears House Committee

From MNEA Legislative Update
by Otto Fajen

The House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee approved an HCS version of  HB 1905 (Kevin Wilson) on February 24.  HB 1905 is a rewrite of HB 805 last year's MSTA anti-bargaining bill for teachers.  The bill would still prevent K-12 teachers from having the same right as other public employees to elect an exclusive bargaining representative under a consistent framework applicable to all public employees.
The bill also makes other changes that would weaken or undermine an effective bargaining process and make it much less likely that districts and employee organizations will reach bargained agreements.  The bill unnecessarily limits the scope of what can be bargained, and gives exclusive control to school districts of many issues which could be handled by mutual agreement, such as setting bargaining timelines.

The Missouri NEA strongly opposes HB 1905. An effective bargaining process must have a unified employee voice capable of agreeing to and enforcing a bargained agreement. MNEA supports legislation that would treat all public employees fairly and that is built on broad consensus among public employee groups and public employers.  An effective bargaining law must ultimately provide for exclusive bargaining representation, a clear duty for both employees and employers to bargain in good faith, binding agreements with a clear ratification process and a fair process to resolve impasse and grievances.

Anti-Union Organizing Bill Vote

Remember SJR 40 sponsored by Send. Jack Goodman?  This is the bill that makes it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union, requiring an election regardless of the circumstances.  Well, it passed in committee on a party line vote: Democrats against, Republicans for.  What more can I say?

Senate Gridlock Cripples NLRB

Michael J. Goldberg  Labor Notes Feb. 22, 2010

Political wrangling in the Senate continues to cripple the National Labor Relations Board, which has been operating with only two members for more than two years.

At full strength, the NLRB has five members serving staggered terms, with no more than three members from either political party.

Since December 2007, the NLRB’s only two members, Democratic chair Wilma Liebman, and Republican member Peter Schaumber, have been unable to decide any pending cases that raise fundamental policy questions.

That will continue. Senate Democrats on February 9 were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to get an up or down vote on one of President Obama’s nominees, Craig Becker, a former SEIU and current AFL-CIO lawyer.

Two Democratic senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, joined Republicans in opposing Becker, on the grounds that he would be too biased in favor of labor. Becker has published several articles calling for Employee Free Choice Act-type reforms, and his opponents claim he would try to implement some of those changes through NLRB decisions.

Obama’s other two nominees, Mark Pearce, a union-side lawyer and a Democrat, and Brian Hayes, a Senate Labor Committee staffer and a Republican, are less controversial, but so far the Obama strategy has been for all three nominees to be voted on together, as NLRB appointments have been handled for several decades.

The latest chapter in the saga came two days after Becker’s confirmation was sunk, when Obama decided not to seat his NLRB nominees through a “recess appointment” in February. (President George W. Bush, on the other hand, used recess appointments to seat seven NLRB nominees.)

Obama’s decision guarantees that well into his presidency, the many pro-employer and anti-union decisions of the Bush NLRB will remain on the books.

JUSTICE DELAYED

We’re all familiar with the expression, “justice delayed is justice denied,” and nowhere is that more true than in labor law. The NLRB’s backlog is a serious problem. At less than a hundred cases, it’s not huge. Most, however, raise major questions of national labor policy.

One case would decide whether unions and employers that enter into neutrality agreements in organizing campaigns can also agree in advance to the contract terms that would cover those workers.

A second would clarify the distinction between employees, who are covered by federal labor law, and independent contractors, who are not. A third involves the NLRB’s ability to bar retaliatory lawsuits brought by employers against unions. Yet another would determine whether unions can use their now-famous giant inflatable rat on certain picket lines.

Many of these and other important NLRB cases have been in limbo for years—60 have been pending for more than two years and 24 have been pending for at least four years! And that doesn’t include additional delays if cases finally decided by the board end up in federal appeals court, as many do.

This means that clear violations of the law go without remedy for years, for workers who were illegally fired, for unions tied up in employer challenges after winning a representation election, or for unions struggling to negotiate contracts in the face of employers’ bad-faith bargaining.

Delay almost always works to the employers’ advantage, taking the wind out of union organizing campaigns and weakening workers’ support for unions already in place.

ROUTINE DECISIONS AT RISK

The two-member NLRB has managed to decide more than 500 uncontroversial cases over the last two years. But even those routine decisions are in jeopardy.

When employers refuse to comply with NLRB remedies, the board must seek enforcement in federal appeals courts. Those courts are split on whether it is even legal for an NLRB with only two members to issue any decisions at all, even in easy cases where both members agree.

One court so far has refused to enforce NLRB orders on those grounds—the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It’s the most important federal appeals court for labor, because any employer that doesn’t like an NLRB decision can usually steer an appeal to that court.

Sometime this spring the Supreme Court will decide whether a two-member NLRB has the legal authority to make rulings. If the court says no, there could be even more paralysis at the NLRB as hundreds of routine cases thought to be resolved head back to square one.

PROSPECTS FOR NOMINEES

Between the recent loss of a Democratic Senate seat from Massachusetts and occasional defections from Democrats, how can Obama get his nominees seated?

Since paralysis at the NLRB generally favors employer interests, there is not much incentive for Republicans to compromise on Obama’s NLRB appointments, unless enough political pressure can be brought to bear on Republican senators from states with a strong labor presence and on waffling Democrats like those who opposed Craig Becker.

Another option is for Obama to fill the vacancies with recess appointments. During Senate recesses scheduled for early April and late May, the president could fill the seats on a temporary basis and avoid more confirmation proceedings until after the 2010 elections.

But Obama has been reluctant to use recess appointments. As his hopes for bipartisan solutions keep crashing on the rocks of a stubborn and unified Republican opposition, however, he may see no choice but to start playing hardball.

Given the sorry state of affairs at the NLRB, it’s no surprise that for years now unions have been trying to achieve their goals without relying on the board.

---

Michael Goldberg teaches labor law at Widener Law School in Wilmington, Delaware.

Anti-Union Organizing bill passes Senate Committee

The Missouri Senate Small Business Committee voted SJR 40 (Jack Goodman) Do Pass on February 16. This is the bill that makes it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union, requiring an election regardless of the circumstances. (see Feb. 12 post for more information). I will post the vote when I get it. Stay tuned...

Labor History at the Movies!

There is still time to sign up for the MU Labor Education Class, Labor History at the Movies (enrollment ends on March 1). March 9, 16, 23, and April 6, 13. 20, 27, at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at 3215B LaMone Blvd. Call 573-882-8358 for info. This one is going to be fun, bring your own popcorn.

Why the NLRB Matters

by Amy Taub
DMI Blog

When the Senate filibustered the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, it wasn't just a setback for President Obama or for what the Wall Street Journal editorial page likes to call "Big Labor." It was a slap in the face to the American middle class.

True, most Americans have no idea what the National Labor Relations Board is or what it does. But if we don't know we've been slapped, we feel the sting nonetheless.

We feel the sting when we realize that typical working families gained very little benefit from the boom years of the 2000s, even though corporate profits and incomes at the top soared. We feel it when we realize that the real wage for the typical American man was barely higher in 2007 than it was in 1973, despite big gains in workplace productivity that mean these workers were creating more value. We feel it when, as economists at the Economic Policy Institute observe "The American workforce is working harder, smarter, and more efficiently, yet failing to share fairly in the benefits of the growth they themselves are creating."

What does the National Labor Relations Board have to do with all this? Not everything: factors like increased international trade, technological change, and the shift to a service economy certainly played a role in the stagnating fortunes of working Americans. But by hindering employees' ability to organize unions - the very activity it was established to promote - and by failing to adapt workplace regulations to deal with a changing economy, the NLRB undermined the ability of working Americans to negotiate for their fair share of economic gains. In doing so, it undermined the nation's middle class. Craig Becker's nomination to the Board was supposed to be a step toward reversing the decline.

A little background: the NLRB was established in 1935 as part of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board was empowered to "make, amend, and rescind... rules and regulations" necessary to carry out the Act and its aim of protecting the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.

It worked reasonably well for awhile. In the 1950s, more than a third of American workers held a union card. By negotiating for higher wages and better working conditions, unions transformed "bad" jobs on manufacturing assembly lines into today's "good" jobs, providing the economic mobility that enabled working people to enjoy a middle-class standard of living.

But over the decades, and especially during the Bush years, the NLRB strayed from its mission of protecting workers' rights. The Board increasingly sided with employers, turning a blind eye to employers' anti-union threats and coercion, allowing employers to enact workplace policies that inhibit employees' established rights to freedom of association, and restricting the rights to nurses, temp workers, college instructors, and other broad groups of employees to even make a choice about union representation.

Illegal anti-union tactics by employers grew more pervasive as a result. Research by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner reveals that today more than half of employers faced with a union organizing drive illegally threaten to close down their facility if the union wins, while one in three companies illegally fire workers for union activity. Employers regularly engage in surveillance, intimidation and harassment of employees trying to unionize. The NLRB's dereliction of duty means that supporting a union at work now poses workers with a significant risk of getting fired.

Today, unions still manage to bargain for the kind of wages and benefits that once characterized the American middle class, but the decades of anti-union policy by employers abetted by the NLRB mean they represent a shrinking proportion of the American workforce, now disproportionately in the public sector. That isn't enough to sustain the middle class, and as Harold Meyerson pointed out in the Washington Post, it soon won't be enough to fight for the broad public good on issues like universal health care and financial regulation.

Revitalizing the NLRB, and returning it to its original mission is a key step toward rebuilding the American middle class. Just because the Senate has slapped us across the face doesn't mean President Obama needs to follow suit. A recess appointment for Craig Becker would begin to heal the wound.

Amy Traub: Author
Posted at 8:43 AM, Feb 11, 2010 in Labor | Middle-class squeeze

Under Obama, labor should have made more progress

By Harold Meyerson
Washington Post, Feb. 10, 2010
For American labor, year one of Barack Obama's presidency has been close to an unmitigated disaster.

Labor's primary priority -- the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- died when the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate. Labor's normal priority -- a functioning National Labor Relations Board -- also seems out of reach, with Republicans on Tuesday blocking the appointment of Obama nominee Craig Becker (that's why Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown scurried down to Washington last week to take his seat). Other key legislation for which labor has lobbied, including health-care reform and financial regulations, languishes in the Senate.

For the unions, the Senate's inability to pass EFCA is devastating and galling. Democratic senators had developed a compromise proposal that would have jettisoned the controversial "card check" process -- by which unions could be organized without a secret ballot -- in favor of expediting the election process (so that management couldn't delay for months, or even years, employees' votes on whether to unionize) and stiffening the penalties for violating the rules that govern election conduct.

The compromise had a shot at winning all 60 Democratic votes. The unions, which spent more than $300 million in the 2008 elections on Democrats' behalf, wanted a vote on EFCA last year, but Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked them to wait until health reform had passed. (Their requests for confirmation votes on NLRB appointees were similarly delayed.)

By my count, this marks the fourth time in the past half-century that labor's efforts to strengthen workers' ability to organize have been deferred by the Democratic presidents and the heavily Democratic Congresses they supported. In 1965, about the only piece of Great Society legislation not enacted was the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act provision that gave states the power to block unions from claiming as members all the employees in workplaces where they had won contracts. In 1979, as American management was beginning to invest heavily in union-busting endeavors, the first effort to reform labor law failed to win cloture in the Senate by one vote as President Jimmy Carter stood idly by. In 1994, President Bill Clinton responded to a similar labor-backed effort by appointing a commission to recommend changes in labor law to the next Congress -- which turned out to be run by Newt Gingrich. And last year, by asking his labor supporters to wait, Obama ensured -- unintentionally, of course -- that the next effort to revive organizing must wait until the next overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, the percentage of American workers in unions steadily declines. During the 1965 effort, more than 30 percent of private-sector workers belonged to unions. In 1979, the share was 21 percent; in 1994, 11 percent; and in 2009, just 7.2 percent. When the next chance to rewrite labor law comes around, the rate of private-sector unionization could be down to trace elements.

What will life be like in an America with almost no private-sector unions or collective bargaining? We had a glimpse of that during George W. Bush's presidency, in which the unionization rate was already so low that median household incomes declined even as gross domestic product rose. It's also apparent that a deunionized private sector won't readily support -- politically or economically -- a unionized or expansive public sector. In 1960, when California Gov. Pat Brown created the nation's foremost public sector -- the greatest university systems, freeways and aqueducts -- it was paid for by the nation's most vibrant, and one of its most highly unionized, private-sector economies. California's private sector is nowhere near as vibrant or unionized today -- a major reason its public sector is crumbling.

In a deunionized America, it's not clear who, if anyone, will fund campaigns such as those the unions funded this year, for universal health care and financial regulation. It's also not clear who, if anyone, will persuade working-class whites to vote Democratic. (Over the past half-century, white male union members have voted Democratic at a rate 20 percentage points higher than their nonunion counterparts.)

No nation has ever been home to a middle-class majority absent a sizable labor movement. In their failure to advance labor's prospects, the Democrats condemn themselves to a future of fewer Democratic voters and their nation to a future of mass downward mobility.

No Deal!

By Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President

Senate Republican obstructionists are working overtime to block the interests of working people. Today we hear the White House and Senate have cut a deal with Republicans that will keep President Obama's nominees off the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for even longer.

The NLRB's job is to protect workers' rights -- but for more than two years it has been functioning with only two members instead of the five it should have. Working people need an NLRB that can enforce the National Labor Relations Act -- not one hobbled by vacancies.

President Obama's nominees -- Craig Becker and Mark Pearce -- are highly qualified, well-respected labor lawyers who were nominated seven months ago, in July.

But Senate Republicans have ignored the working people they represent and blocked the appointments.

Yesterday, in a deal with the Republican minority, the Senate confirmed 27 non-controversial Obama appointees. The White House apparently has agreed not to make Presidents Day recess appointments -- a process that allows the president to temporarily appoint his own nominee while Congress is out of session. That means NLRB nominees -- and working people -- are out in the cold.

A big win for the Republicans. A big win for corporations that want to file down the teeth of the NLRB. A big loss for working people.

We're used to the Republicans playing the role of Lucy and yanking the football away each time Charlie Brown tries to kick it. We've seen it on health care, jobs legislation, you name it.

President Obama has to end this farce.

Becker already received majority approval from the Senate, but apparently majority rule isn't good enough any more. A Republican filibuster -- joined by Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) -- blocked his nomination from going forward. By contrast, when President Bush made his initial appointments to the NLRB, a package of nominees including three management lawyers was approved unanimously.

So today and every day through the congressional recess, union members and other activists from working America will be calling the White House and demanding a recess appointment now for Craig Becker and Mark Pearce.

These next few weeks will be crucial in building support for a fully functional NLRB. Progressives should take every opportunity to let their congressional representatives and the White House know that protection of workers' rights is one of the first and most important changes working people expected to see when they voted in 2008. It's been 13 months since the inauguration -- it's time.

Give recess appointments to Craig Becker and Mark Pearce during the Presidents Day recess so the NLRB can do its job.

Try Again - Meeting March 8

Columbia Mayoral candidates will answer our questions on March 8 at the Labor Temple. The snow has to be gone by then, right?

Legislation Would Suppress Union Organizing

The Senate Small Business Committee heard SJR 40 (Jack Goodman) on February 9. The SJR would require a secret ballot election for union recognition, making voluntary recognition by the employer illegal. If SJR 40 were to become law, tax dollars would be needlessly spent on State Board of Mediation and NLRB elections, even when the employer and union agree that there is no need for an election! The legislation is a reaction to the federal Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), although you have to wonder how state law can trump federal law. You could also wonder if EFCA has much chance of passing at this point.

The arguments for the resolution ring hollow in Missouri, especially for public employees who would not even be affected by the federal EFCA if it passes, but who may be affected by SJR 40. For teachers and law enforcement employees, the state law does not currently provide for a process to fulfill their constitutional right to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing. Rather than passing this anti-union measure, the legislature should enact an effective bargaining law that treats all public employees fairly.

Unions bash Democrats, warn of political fallout

Is anyone surprised?

By JAMES HOHMANN | 2/10/10
Politico

Labor groups furious at Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) are threatening to stay home during this fall's midterm elections.

Labor groups are furious with the Democrats they helped put in office — and are threatening to stay home this fall when Democratic incumbents will need their help fending off Republican challengers.

The Senate’s failure to confirm labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board was just the latest blow, but the frustrations have been building for months.

"Here's labor getting thrown under the bus again," said John Gage, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 workers. "It's really frustrating for labor, and a lot of union people are thinking: We put out big time in money and volunteers and support. And it seems like the little things that could have been aren't being done."

The 52-33 vote on Becker — who needed 60 to be confirmed — really set labor unions on edge, but the list of setbacks is growing.

The so-called “card check” bill that would make it easier to unionize employees has gone nowhere. A pro-union Transportation Security Administration nominee quit before he even got a confirmation vote. And even though unions got a sweetheart deal to keep their health plans tax-free under the Senate health care bill, that bill has collapsed, leaving unions exposed again.

Union leaders warn that the Democrats' lackluster performance in power is sapping the morale of activists going into the midterm elections.

"Right now if we don’t get positive changes to the agenda, we’re going to have a hard time getting members out to work," said United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard, in an interview.

“There’s no use pretending any longer.”

The biggest threat, of course, is apathy from a Democratic constituency that has a history of mobilizing for elections.

"You're just not going to be able to go to our membership in the November elections and say, 'Come on, let's do it again. Look at what the Democratic administration has done for us!'" Gage said. "People are going to say, 'Huh? What have the Democrats done for us?'"

Kim Freeman Brown, the executive director of a D.C.-based nonprofit called American Rights at Work, acknowledged "frustration" with the lack of movement.

"I implore Congress to listen to the voice of their constituents who want change, and so far we haven't delivered good enough on that promise," she said. "To the degree that we don't address these real bread-and-butter issues, we will have failed America's workers."

Gage warned that Democrats will struggle to energize blue-collar voters if they don't score a few victories soon. Union leaders say they will closely watch as a new "jobs bill" emerges to see if it includes more labor-friendly provisions or tax cuts for small businesses.

When you talk to labor officials these days, much of their animus is directed at Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who helped filibuster Becker's confirmation.

"Ben Nelson has got principles until you buy him off," Gerard said.
A group affiliated with the Service Employees International Union, called Change That Works, had defended Nelson's support for an unpopular health care reform bill in his home state.

But the Nebraska director of that group, Jane Kleeb, now criticizes Nelson for not allowing the Becker nomination to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote. And Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, accused Nelson of following a "double standard" since he had argued that the nominees of then-President George W. Bush should get up-or-down votes.

Another AFL-CIO spokesman, Eddie Vale, pinpointed Nelson, saying he had "let down" working families.

Nelson said Becker’s stance on labor issues made him worry whether he would be "impartial" in making NLRB decisions.

But labor unions can’t pin all their blame on Nelson. The failure of a wide range of union priorities has been deflating for the labor movement, which seemed destined to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Barack Obama’s presidency.

And with unemployment hovering around 10 percent, special treatment for unions has only served to harm the movement.

On health care, unions found themselves in a defensive posture. They worked in early January to carve out an exception from an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance policies, only to see the package fall apart, with recriminations about just the kind of back-room deal making they had engaged in.

Obama said he would push for greater unionization at the Transportation Security Administration, but it hasn't happened. Obama has pushed for education programs that have long been unpopular with teachers' unions. And then, in his State of the Union address, the president called for Congress to strengthen trade relationships with South Korea, Panama and Columbia.

The support for those trade agreements irked Gerard, the leader of the steelworkers union, who praises Speaker Nancy Pelosi but blames the upper chamber.

"Our problem is the Senate," Gerard said. "The only thing they can pass is the washroom. I don't want to tar Democrats. Not all Democrats in the Senate are problems."

The situation in the Senate became more frustrating when Democrats lost their 60-seat supermajority with the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown.

Brown’s first significant vote was a “no” on Becker.

"I think you see how working people feel by how they voted in Massachusetts," Gerard said. "In Massachusetts, it wasn't an anger that the government had done too much. It was an anger that there hadn't been enough change."

Democrats are now scrambling to shore up support for labor unions, but they don’t seem to have a game plan for more union-friendly legislation in advance of the midterm elections.

But Katie Packer, executive director of the anti-card-check Workforce Fairness Institute, said labor groups would have achieved a lot more if they hadn't overreached.

"I'm from Detroit, so the concept of labor overreach is not lost on me," she said. "What we've seen more than anything is an attempt by big labor is to be especially greedy and grab for things that weren't achievable."

Ben Nelson will back GOP filibuster

Another conservative Democrat steps on labor's neck to shore up his support on the right. After Nelson and the united Republicans kill this nomination, will they confirm the next one? Don't bet on it. More than one year into the Obama administration and the NLRB is still trying to operate with only two of the five seats filled.

By MANU RAJU | 2/8/10 7:11 PM EST
from Politico

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Monday that he'll support a GOP-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board.
Photo: Reuters

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Monday evening that he will support a Republican-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nominee to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

The move is likely to infuriate labor groups who have fought hard for Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the five-member NLRB - and will likely give Republicans enough support to sustain a filibuster Tuesday.

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,” Nelson said in a statement. “This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand."

Nelson, a conservative Democrat up for reelection in 2012, has seen his approval ratings drop sharply since he lent his support for Obama's health care bill in December and secured deals for Nebraska's Medicaid payments.

His latest decision could help him tout his independent credentials back home, but will likely generate anger from the left, which says Becker is a well-qualified nominee who has been denigrated by his opponents.

Republicans have tried to make Becker's nomination a referendum on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier to unionize. In his statement, Nelson said Becker has made several statements that "fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws."

February meeting postponed

President Russ Unger has cancelled the February meeting, due to the weather. The meeting will be rescheduled soon and we will post the new date here. Thank you.

Mayoral Candidates at Feb. Meeting

The Mid-MO Labor Club will meet on February 8 at the Columbia Labor Temple at 6:00 pm. Come hear what Jerry Wade, Sid Sullivan, Bob McDavid and Sean O'Day have to say about their plans for the city. Below is a summary of the candidates from the Tribune.

By DANIEL CAILLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, January 24, 2010

A dozen candidates are set to vie for seats on the Columbia City Council on the April ballot, and half of them are taking part in the most competitive mayoral race in 15 years.

MAYOR

Sean O’Day

Paul Love

Bob McDavid

Sal Nuccio

Sid Sullivan

Jerry Wade


THIRD WARD

Gary Kespohl

Karl Skala


FOURTH WARD

Rick Buford

Daryl Dudley

Tracy Greever-Rice

Sarah Read

Filing closed Thursday for Columbia’s mayoral and Third and Fourth Ward races, and all petitions have been verified. Six candidates are seeking the mayoral seat, from which Darwin Hindman is stepping down after a record five terms. There have not been this many candidates for mayor since 1995.

“Being the mayor of Columbia is a great responsibility and a great privilege,” Hindman said. “We have a lot of candidates who see it that way.”

In 1995, Hindman and five others — including two MU students — sought to replace two-term Mayor Mary Anne McCollum, who chose not to seek re-election. Hindman won that race with 52.5 percent of the vote.

Hindman ran unopposed in 1998 and 2001. In 2004, he won with 71 percent of the vote against community activist John Clark, with 26 percent, and computer consultant Arch Brooks, with 3 percent. In 2007, he faced Clark once more, winning 75 percent of the vote.

Issues likely to be central in the April elections are the city’s budget, economic growth, crime and development. Sales tax revenue continued to dip in fiscal 2009, and ideas for how to maintain city services and encourage economic growth likely will take center stage.

CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR ARE:

Jerry Wade: Finishing his first term on city council as the Fourth Ward representative, Wade spent 12 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Sal Nuccio: The owner of Eastside Tavern on Broadway, he announced a campaign for First Ward councilman against Paul Sturtz in 2007 but withdrew days before the filing deadline.

Sid Sullivan: Chairman of the Boone Electric Community Trust, Sullivan made an unsuccessful bid for the 24th District seat in the Missouri House of Representatives in 2006 and for the Boone County Commission in 2008.

Paul Love: A network analyst for Carfax who served 10 years in the National Guard.

Bob McDavid: A retired obstetrician, McDavid is chairman of the Boone Hospital Center Board of Trustees.

Sean O’Day: The youngest of the candidates at 23, he is a student at Moberly Area Community College.

THIRD WARD CANDIDATES ARE:

Karl Skala: The only incumbent in the April race, Skala is seeking his second term on the council. He spent six years on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Gary Kespohl: The owner of Central Missouri Computer Center, Kespohl is on the Special Business District Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Kespohl and Skala also ran against each other in 2007. Skala won with 908 votes over Kespohl’s 845.

FOURTH WARD CANDIDATES ARE:

Sarah Read: Read owns a law firm and is the founding member and president of The Communications Center Inc.

Tracy Greever-Rice: An associate director for MU’s Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis and a former Planning and Zoning commissioner who serves on the Columbia Vision Commission.

Rick Buford: A senior network administrator for Carfax, he wants to see more discussion in government about long-term effects on spending.

Daryl Dudley: Dudley, the manager of a Hy-Vee gas station, wants to make Columbia attractive to new businesses.

Other city issues on the ballot include a measure on downtown security cameras and five amendments to the city charter.

NLRB backs drivers in dispute with MFA Oil Deal could return workers to jobs.

Columbia labor got some good news with this decision. If you want to wade into the comments posted by readers go to: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jan/27/nlrb-backs-drivers-in-dispute-with-mfa-oil/.
One warning, the lack of understanding about unions and labor issues by some of the posters may be disturbing!

by JODIE JACKSON JR.
Columbia Tribune
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Thirty-five truck drivers put out of work by MFA Oil Co. in the summer could get their jobs back if the National Labor Relations Board has its way.

Columbia-based MFA Oil has avoided litigation by the NLRB over unfair labor practices by agreeing to negotiate a settlement with Teamsters Local 833, which represents drivers put out of work when MFA decided to eliminate its transport division.

Naomi Stuart, NLRB Region 17 deputy director, said this morning that MFA has committed to settle the issue rather than let an administrative law judge decide the matter.

Stuart said MFA and the Teamsters have until Feb. 5 to work out a settlement.

If the parties do not reach a settlement, Stuart said, an agreement proposed by the NLRB would be put in place.

“They said if they can’t work it out, they will go back to the initial proposed settlement,” Stuart said. She declined to divulge details of the proposed settlement but said restoring the drivers’ jobs “would certainly be something we would ask for.”

“What we were asking for is” that “the work would come back” to the transport division, Stuart said. The mechanism for restoring the positions and related benefits issues would be a matter of negotiation.

“The union and the employer can determine how to turn back the clock,” Stuart said.

MFA Oil officials did not return phone calls this morning to comment.

Darrell Martin, business agent for Teamsters Local 833 in Jefferson City, confirmed that the union is now negotiating with MFA Oil. Martin said he was unable to comment on the negotiations but added that the union is trying to restore lost jobs.

“We went to bat for them,” Martin said, referring to the displaced truck drivers.

A three-year contract for the transport division expired at the end of August, and MFA notified Local 833 in July that the company was considering eliminating the division, which hauled fuel from MFA terminals to its retail facilities.

Stuart said the Teamsters’ complaint with the NLRB cited an absence of good-faith bargaining by MFA.

NLRB investigators found merit to the complaint and opted to sue MFA through the administrative process.

MFA officials said last summer that using “common carriers” rather than continuing the Teamsters contract would be more profitable for the 40,000-member, farmer-owned cooperative. The company has 1,500 employees and provides fuel and other automobile products to customers in six states. The cooperative owns gasoline-convenience stores, Jiffy Lube outlets, Big O Tires stores and other operations throughout the region.

The company’s transport unit was the only unionized division of MFA Oil.

The labor board’s decision to sue the company spurred officials to come to the bargaining table, Martin said.

“MFA avoided that … by simply rescinding their order to shut down the transport division,” he said. The next step, Martin said, is to restore the jobs that were lost.

That was good news this morning to Greg Miller, a Columbia truck driver who lost his job when MFA axed the transport division. He’s been waiting to hear the outcome of the renewed negotiations.

“To my understanding, everybody’s supposed to get their jobs back, at least those that want them,” said Miller, 50, who had 10 years of service as a transport driver with MFA Oil.

“I’d go back,” he said. “I’ve talked to several others that would probably go back, too.”

Reach Jodie Jackson Jr. at 573-815-1713 or e-mail jjackson@columbiatribune.com.