Two open city council seats draw little interest

The Tribune covers the lack of candidates filed so far for city council.  There is also an open seat for CPS school board that no one has filed for yet.   We need candidates who will work with city and school district employees as partners.   That includes real collective bargaining that allows workers a voice on their job. 


By ANDREW DENNEY
Saturday, December 31, 2011

The deadline to file for the April elections for the Sixth and Second ward seats on the Columbia City Council is less than two weeks away, but no one has filed to run for the Second Ward seat — which is being vacated by Jason Thornhill — and no challengers have filed to take on two-term Sixth Ward Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe.

Thornhill, who was elected in 2009, said he has approached two residents in his ward to gauge their interest in taking his place on the council, but so far neither has committed. Thornhill said voters in his ward, which encompasses northwest Columbia, are “fairly apathetic” and said the ward does not face many controversial issues.

The deadline to file is Jan. 10, and the election is scheduled for April 3. Thornhill said he is leaving the seat to spend more time with his family.

City attorney Fred Boeckmann said if there are no filers by the deadline, then write-in candidates would be accepted for the April ballot. If there are no write-in candidates for the election, Thornhill would remain Second Ward representative — unless he resigns — until a new council member is found through a special election.

Thornhill said if no one files for the seat, he will continue to work with the council until a new representative is found. “I wouldn’t just walk off and leave them hanging,” Thornhill said. “But there would have to be some sort of end in sight, so to speak.”

Until the boundaries of the city’s six wards were redrawn this year to account for population shifts revealed in the 2010 Census, Thornhill’s ward was the most populous. From 2000 to 2010, the Second Ward grew by 7,733 residents. Before the ward boundaries were drawn to cede territory from the Second Ward into the First Ward, the former had more than 21,000 residents.

But when considering the elections for the sitting representatives of the city’s six wards, voter turnout in the Second Ward was among the lowest. There were a total of 1,243 voters in the 2009 race for Second Ward representative when Thornhill defeated Allan Sharrock with 51 percent of the vote.

Turnout was lower for Hoppe’s re-election in 2009 — 1,122 voters came to the polls and favored Hoppe over challenger Rod Robison with 59 percent of the vote.

Hoppe, who has served on the council longer than any sitting member, said if she wins re-election in April she will not seek a fourth term.

Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.

Community nears goal in food drive challenge

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/dec/15/community-nears-goal-in-food-drive-challenge/


August Kryger


Brad Fraizer, president of Columbia Professional Firefighters, holds a sign Thursday morning at Broadway and Providence Road. Columbia firefighters and others are putting on a last-minute push to meet the goal of collecting 1 million pounds of food for The Food Bank for Central & Northeast Missouri by 6 p.m. Thursday.

By ANDREW DENNEY
Thursday, December 15, 2011


Organizers of a food drive for The Food Bank for Central & Northeast Missouri say donations picked up in the final hours of the effort and the goal of collecting 1 million pounds of food appears to be within reach.

The effort began last month when Mayor Bob McDavid issued a challenge to Columbia residents. Peggy Kirkpatrick, executive director of the food bank, said yesterday afternoon that the effort had raised less than 300,000 pounds of food.

But Brad Fraizer, president of Columbia Professional Firefighters, said that by 11 a.m. today, the volume of donations had doubled.

“It’s huge,” Fraizer said. “We’re really shocked at how generous the community is being.”

Columbia firefighters have been a major part of the effort — they have accepted donations at fire stations since the effort began, and Columbia Fire Chief Charles Witt and Deputy Chief Randall White have each pledged to donate 1 ton of food to the drive.

To take part in the effort, would-be donors may either give food or a monetary donation — a $1 donation translates into 20 pounds of food. Donations are being collected at Broadway and Providence Road and at Schnucks and Walmart stores throughout the city. Donation bins also are available at City Hall. The drive ends at 6 p.m. today.

Last year, the food bank distributed 27.4 million pounds of food to area schools and food pantries.

This year, officials at the food bank expect to distribute about 30 million pounds. Through the first 11 months of the year, the food bank has distributed 350,000 more pounds of food to 135 pantries and 138 schools in the 32-county region.

According to food bank statistics, the number of Boone County residents who receive food assistance increased from 14,628 per month in 2009 to 20,016 per month this year, and 42 percent of Columbia Public Schools’ elementary and middle school students qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.

This morning, state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, delivered more than 500 pounds of ham donated by Kansas City-based Farmland Foods as part of the effort. Schaefer said the company also would like to meet with food bank officials to assess their need for protein-rich food, which he said is hard for the food bank to access.

Schaefer said he has also pre-filed a bill for the upcoming legislative session that would extend for an additional 10 years a tax credit for foods pantries that expired in August. The credit was aimed at small- to midlevel donors and was worth as much as 50 percent of their donation with a $5,000 cap.

Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.

Columbia School Board to discuss bond issue, collective bargaining

It appears that the CPS School Board will vote to do what every one else does - allow teachers to elect an exclusive bargaining representative and bargain collectively.  Stay tuned.

 Monday meeting offers last opportunity to voice issues with tax rate increase proposal

Columbia Missourian
Saturday, December 10, 2011 | 4:59 p.m. CST; updated 10:41 p.m. CST, Saturday, December 10, 2011
BY JAMES AYELLO
COLUMBIA — As the Columbia School Board prepares to ask its residents to consider approving a $50 million bond issue with a 52-cent tax rate increase, it will meet at 6:30 p.m. Monday at the District Administration Building to discuss any last issues before the proposal is finalized.

The board has said that if no new money comes into the district, it will begin deficit spending by the 2012-13 school year.

“We need to figure out how we get ahead in this game," school board member Jonathan Sessions said at the board’s special session Tuesday night. “We really need to assess what it's going to take to build a ladder out of the hole we’re in.”

The board will also be revisiting the issue of collective bargaining for district employees, including teachers.

Until a couple months ago, the board was considering two polices, HH and HA, created by the Missouri School Board Association. Policy HH was a plan that would require the district to recognize one or more bargaining groups that would negotiate exclusively with the district.

Policy HA was a less specific policy that provides legal ground rules for districts to negotiate with employee associations. It also outlines election rules for employee groups and recognizes which groups are allowed to collectively bargain,according to a previous Missourian report.

In October, when it appeared the board was going to make a decision about the polices, it instead voted 6-1 to send them back to committee. Following the meeting, the board decided to hire a consultant to work with the district's policy committee to help revise the polices in order to make them more specific to the district.

At Monday night's meeting, the policy committee will unveil the revised policies to the board and the public. The two new policies will be presented to the board for a first reading and will be presented again on Jan. 9 for approval.

The district currently employs a “meet and confer” policy that calls for employees of the district to negotiate their contracts on an individual basis.

The board will also consider a new name for the administrative building at Monday's meeting.

Here They Go Again...

No big surprise here.  There are likely to be lots of anti-worker bills in the Missouri legislature again.  It's like that movie Groundhog Dog It's up to us to make sure they meet the same fate that they have in the past.

‘Right-to-work’ fight to resume in Jefferson City
Missouri News Horizon
December 6, 2011 | Posted by: Tim Sampson

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – As the 2012 state legislative session begins to take shape, a familiar labor fight is heading to the floor of the Senate.

Once again, State Senate Leader Robert Mayer, R-Dexter, has introduced a bill that would keep Missouri workers from being forced to join a union against their will. Mayer recently pre-filed a bill to be brought up during the next legislative session, which begins in January.

The so-called “right-to-work” issue was debated during the 2011 legislative session but failed to gain enough traction to pass both chambers. The proposal would give workers in Missouri the option to not join a union if the rest of their workplace chooses to unionize – preventing them from having to pay union dues or strike against their will.

Pro-business lawmakers and lobbyist have argued that current law is unfair to individual workers and makes Missouri less attractive when trying to court businesses from neighboring right-to-work states.

But labor groups contend that allowing individual workers to opt out weakens the stance of the union. They say right-to-work laws are unfair since they allow workers who opt out of the union to benefit from union actions that increase wages and benefits to all workers.

Slow progress at the NLRB.  

 

Wednesday Nov 30, 2011 6:30 pm 

Working In These Times

Crazy Day at NLRB: Shutdown Averted, Boeing Case Settled

By Mike Elk

More peaceful days may be ahead for the federal agency in charge of enforcing labor law and mediating conflicts
WASHINGTON D.C.—In one of the most tense votes ever held in the history of the National Labor Relations Board, today the federal agency voted to proceed with enacting a new rule to curtail employers' ability to appeal workplace unionization elections before they are held.
The tension was in part due to GOP NLRB Member Brian Hayes threat to resign in protest of the vote, as I reported last week. His resignation would have effectively shut down the agency, because it would have lost a quorum of members needed to issue rulings.
The NLRB voted to move forward with a limited portion of a union election reform rule  related to eliminating pre-union election voter eligibility determination appeals that currently delay union elections. Under the rule, such appeals would be held after a union election is already held. Now the rule will be prepared for final "publication," after which time it will be voted on again.
“The vast majority of NLRB-supervised elections, about 90 percent, are held by agreement of the parties—employees, union and employer—in an average of 38 days from the filing of a petition. The amendments I propose would not affect those agreed-to elections” NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce said today. He continued:

Rather, the amendments would apply to the minority of elections which are held up by needless litigation and disputes which need not be resolved prior to an election. In these contested elections, employees have to wait an average of 101 days to cast a ballot. And as several employees testified at our hearing in July, that period can be disruptive and painful for all involved.

Hayes had threatened to resign because he felt that the process and traditions of the NLRB were not being followed in the run up to consideration of the rule change. He said was not consulted properly as the agency reviewed 65,000 comments received about the rule, and that he did not have proper time to issue a dissenting rule change, among other things.
Hayes later explained why he did not resign from the NLRB, saying, “First, it’s not in my nature to be obstructionist. Second, as a practical matter, my resignation might not mute the issue… Lastly, however, and most importantly, I believe resignation would cause the very same harm and collateral damage to the reputation of this agency and to the interests of its constituents as would the issuance of a controversial rule without three affirmative votes and in the wake of a flawed decisional process. I cannot be credibly critical of the latter and engage myself in the former.”
Polarizing Boeing case finally settled
In other news—but very much related to the NLRB being a target of Republicans—the Machinists Union (IAM) and Boeing have settled their dispute, which resulted in a high-profile NLRB complaint filed against Boeing for illegal retailiation against striking union members. The IAM and the company reached agreement on a new four-year contract, which contains language ensuring that production of the 737 Max airliner will be in Renton, Wash.
IAM District Lodge 751 President Tom Wroblewski said that "if union members vote to approve the deal in the coming weeks, the union would inform the NLRB that it has no further grievances with Boeing,” the AP reported. The contract agreement was reached 10 months before the union's current contract with Boeing expires, which is highly unusual. The contract also reportedly allows for pay and benefit increases over its four years.
NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon said: “The tentative agreement announced today between Boeing and the Machinists Union is a very significant and hopeful development. The tentative agreement is subject to ratification by the employees, and, if ratified, we will be in discussions with the parties about the next steps in the [complaint] process."
A Boeing spokesman "called the new contract with the union 'a starting point of a new relationship' with the union," the AP reported.
If the union drops its lawsuit against Boeing, the NLRB may stop pursuing its complaint against the company.
However, Capitol Hill observers still expect congressional Republicans to continue issuing attacks on the NLRB. “The war against the workers’ rights has been going on for more than a year and I do not think they will stop," said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for Democrats on the House Education and Workforce Committee. “I do not think they will stop their obsession with breaking up workers’ unions.”
Earlier in the day, at a special forum on the attacks on the National Labor Relations Board and workers’ rights sponsored by the National Labor Relations Board, University of Texas Labor Law Professor Jules Getman said the attack on the NLRB was “an almost brilliant strategy by the right wing. Attacks on workers are unpopular as in Ohio, but attacks on governments are fairly popular. So if you can make it about government, you can succeed in taking away the rights of workers.”

Republican elected officials to labor movement: "If we can't win, we are going to take our ball and go home.  So there!"

Will GOP NLRB Member Resign to Shut Down Labor Agency?

By Mike Elk

NLRB member Brian Hayes.   (Photo courtesy NLRB.gov)

Rumors are swirling around Brian Hayes
WASHINGTON, D.C.—On November 30, the National Labor Relations Board is scheduled to vote on proposed rule changes that would speed up union elections by disallowing some appeals until after a workplace vote occurs. Employers typically aim to delay an election so that they can use the time to intimidate employees to voting against a union.
But that vote may never take place, because some conservative members of Congress are pushing a plan that would force the NLRB, which is an independent federal agency tasked with enforcing labor law, to shut down. There are currently three people serving on the NLRB; if that is reduced by one, the body will be unable to issue valid rulings.
In New Process Steel, L.P. vs National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the NLRB cannot decide cases with only two members on the NLRB. For 27 months, during the last year of President Bush’s term and the first 14 months of the Obama administration, the NLRB only had two members (a Democrat and a Republican). The two members agreed to work together on common sense cases where they could easily agree on a ruling; they passed judgment in nearly 600 cases.
But the Supreme Court invalidated all those rulings because they were made with only two members. Therefore, some conservative politicians such as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and prominent right-wing blogs such as RedState.com are pushing for Republican NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes to resign before the vote for the rules is issued on November 30, which would effectively shut down the agency.
The rumors have gotten so strong of conservative pressure on Hayes to resign that Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) wrote the following in an op-ed for The Hill:

Republican elected officials have gone after this small federal agency guns a-blazing—attacking its funding, refusing to confirm nominees, threatening the professional credentials and livelihoods of nonpartisan career employees, and even taking the unprecedented step of calling on Republican Board Member Brian Hayes to abandon the duties he swore to uphold and resign in a blatant political move to incapacitate the agency altogether.

As the NLRB moves to vote on the rule change, all eyes are on Hayes to see if will effectively incapacitating the federal agency. (A spokesperson for the NLRB said Hayes has not commented on the matter.)
But on December 31, the NLRB could once again effectively become paralyzed in a different way. NLRB member Craig Becker’s recess appointment to the board expires when Congress adjourns at the end of 2011. (Republicans in Congress  filibustered Becker's nomination, forcing President Obama to appoint Becker through a back door, so to speak.)
Now there is talk that Republicans in Congress may keep a few members in session over the Christmas holidays in order to prevent President Obama from making another recess appointment to the NLRB. This could potentially focus all eyes—at least those of people who care about the fate of the labor movement, which is very much connected to the NLRB—on President Obama as the election year kicks off. Organized labor’s support may in part hinge on whether or not the president is willing to fight to make an appointment to the NLRB.
President Obama didn't exactly display a sense of urgency to ensure the NLRB can do its job by leaving the agency to languish with only two members for the first 14 months of his term, before being finally forced to issue a recess appointment. And he may be averse to making a recess appointment—they are traditionally controversial—in an election year, particularly with the Boeing case being a hot-button issue among GOP presidential candidates.

Friday Nov 18, 2011 5:44 pm

What Is Killing the Labor Movement?

By David Moberg

A new study offers a surprisingly specific answer
What—or who—is killing off the American labor movement? Is it globalization? New technologies? A shift toward services?

None of the above, say John Schmitt and Alexandra Mitukiewicz of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive Washington think tank. It's politics, they argue, in a study released this week titled "Politics Matter: Changes in Unionization Rates in Rich Countries."

Schmitt and Mitukiewicz compared the experiences from 1960 to the present of 21 rich countries, all of whom had a similar level of global integration and technological development. Despite those resemblances, there were several very different starting points and trajectories for labor movements over the decades with regard to membership and contract coverage. (The two are often quite distinct, since union contracts are extended to nonunion workers in many countries.) And the different patterns closely correlate with the dominant political tradition of the countries.

In the traditionally social democratic countries, like Denmark and Sweden, unions started with very high coverage that grew slightly—often to more than 90 percent—while membership declined a small amount. Countries with a Christian democratic or continental market economy, like Italy, Germany and The Netherlands, have typically seen only modest declines in coverage and membership.
By contrast, labor movements in the largely English-speaking "liberal market economies," like the United States, Australia and New Zealand, have suffered sharp declines, some more dramatic as a percentage of workers than in the United States. (Just 6.9 pecent of private-sector American workers are union members, according to the Labor Department.)

"The patterns are consistent with the view that national politics are a more important determinant of recent trends in unionization than globalization or technological change," the authors conclude.

The decline of unions makes it even more difficult to change the political culture to be less hostile to union organizing. And growing union weakness also contributes to rising economic inequality. In a study published last August, sociologists Bruce Western of Harvard and Jake Rosenfeld of the University of Washington concluded that union membership decline contributed to as much as a third of the increase in wage inequality in the past several decades.

The implications for labor are that it needs political influence and change in both laws and culture as well as more organizing efforts to grow again. But unfortunately, many Democrats sill do not see the future of their party as depending on that new political culture and a union revival.

This leaves me speechless...and pissed off!   Chinese firms hired to build roads and bridges in this country with Chinese workers.  Unpatriotic yes, but also economic suicide. 


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930&section=1206853&playlist=14594944

We won a huge victory in Ohio yesterday.  
Labor send a loud message across the nation - Don't pick a fight with organized workers!

Rex Sinquefield is using some of his billions to pay petition gatherers to put this monster on the ballot.    This is another attempt by the richest 1% to get more money and power, while the other 99% of  us pay in higher taxes and reduced services.  If someone asks you to sign a petition, Decline to Sign!  If you have the time, stand with them and tell others to decline to sign.   The best way to beat this is to keep it off of the ballot. 
 

Sinquefield tax plan helps rich, hurts everyone else

Kansas City Star Editorial, Nov. 5, 2011

Replacing the state income tax with an expanded sales tax would be great for people with very high incomes. They would gain more in tax savings than the extra amount they would have to spend on food, clothing, vehicles and almost everything else.

Included among those beneficiaries would be Rex Sinquefield, the St. Louis multimillionaire who is bankrolling an initiative petition drive to phase out Missouri’s income tax.

But Sinquefield’s gain would come at the expense of middle- and-low-income households, which would not recoup enough in income tax savings to make up for the cost of a higher sales tax on a greater variety of goods and services. Many seniors would receive no income tax break but would pay much more for daily living purchases.

Sinquefield’s scheme would also create a huge hole in the state’s budget, forcing more layoffs of teachers and other public employees.

Fortunately, a broad coalition is trying to head off a statewide vote on the income tax repeal. Coalition for Missouri’s Future includes education groups, unions, the Missouri Municipal League and civic and business groups. They plan to ask Sinquefield, a retired investment banker, to scrap his effort to put an initiative on the November 2012 statewide ballot.

That is a worthy objective. Eliminating or severely restricting the tax on individual income is a popular idea among a select group of economists, theorists and politicians, including Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas. If put into practice as Sinquefield and his backers propose, however, the effects would be devastating.

They want to eliminate the tax source which brings in 65 percent of Missouri’s revenue, claiming unconvincingly that getting rid of the individual income tax will cause new businesses to flock to Missouri and produce enough new revenues to close a $3 billion budget gap.

Under their plan, consumers would pay a 5.5 percent sales tax on food, which currently is exempt. Many services would be newly subjected to a sales tax, which in most cases would be capped at 10 percent, with the state entitled to 7 percent of that amount. The state would receive more than half of the tax for its general fund and dedicated purposes. Over time, some local governments could be forced to reduce their existing sales taxes.

Instead of inhabiting a low-tax utopia, most Missourians would experience a higher cost of living and decimated state services.

Sinquefield’s plan is a loser for nearly everyone. Let’s hope he can be convinced to spare his fellow citizens from a costly referendum on his personal fancy.

This could be a busier than usual election year for labor if the mega sales tax and other issues, good and bad,  get enough signatures to get on the ballot. 

Petitioners begin hitting streets for signatures
By RUDI KELLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 30, 2011

Over the coming months, at street fairs and in shopping districts, Missourians will be approached by people with clipboards asking them for their signatures on initiative petitions.

ACTIVE INITIATIVES
Ideas embodied in those proposals include higher tobacco taxes, repealing personal property taxes and eliminating the state income tax. There are initiatives to limit campaign contributions, reduce the size of the Missouri House of Representatives and to allow early voting.

In all, 34 petitions have been certified for circulation by the Secretary of State, with more in the pipeline. It takes 92,000 to 100,000 signatures to put a statutory change on the ballot and 147,000 to 159,000 signatures to put a constitutional change before voters. The ranges are based on where in the state signatures are collected.

Two proposals would make it far more difficult for lawmakers to alter laws passed by initiative. Under the proposal, lawmakers would have to muster a three-fourths majority to do so. The petition drive on that issue was sparked by actions this year to rewrite voter-approved laws on dog breeding, renewable energy, the minimum wage and nuclear power plant construction.

Freshman Rep. Scott Sifton, D-St. Louis, a spokesman for “Your Vote Counts,” said he conceived the idea soon after taking office. “I was only in Jefferson City a few weeks, and I was beginning to wonder if we were going to do something other than overturn what voters decided.”

Under the proposal, the supermajority rule would apply forever and even technical changes to smooth implementation would be subject to the requirement. Non-controversial technical changes should have no trouble meeting the threshold, Sifton said. The aim, he said, is to prevent attempts to weaken or repeal laws proposed and approved by voters.

“When millions of Missourians weigh in on an issue they are entitled to substantial deference,” Sifton said. “This is a standard that requires bipartisanship and cooperation from legislators from all regions of the state.”

But the high standard and open-ended nature of the requirement has put off at least one group that has fought battles with lawmakers.

Missouri Jobs with Justice, which pushed the successful 2006 initiative to increase the state minimum wage, is awaiting certification of its proposal to increase it again, this time to $8.25 an hour. The group has fought attempts to take away the cost-of-living inflation adjustment included in the 2006 measure.

“They have attempted to change this every year and voters have spoken out, and they have not succeeded,” said Lara Granich, the group’s executive director.

But right after it passed, supporters and opponents agreed a change was needed — the overtime rules in the measure had an unintended impact on how hours are counted for firefighters. “That is a good example of the common-sense things that would be hard to do if that passed,” she said.

A similar result was achieved this year when Gov. Jay Nixon stepped into the fight over dog breeder rules. With those seeking an outright repeal on one side and those wanting no change on the other, Nixon negotiated a compromise acceptable to almost all the groups involved. The Humane Society of the United States, which had funded the initiative, was one of the groups not pleased with the deal, and it has put $146,000 in the Your Vote Counts campaign.

Granich said her group will stay out of the Your Vote Counts effort even as it gears up for another fight over the inflation adjustment. The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations recently announced that, because of 4.2 percent inflation in the past year, the state minimum wage beginning Jan. 1 would be $7.25 an hour.

The federal minimum has been $7.25 an hour since July 2009, so the lowest-paid workers in the state will not receive a raise. But because the state and federal wages are now equal, business groups will be pushing lawmakers again to repeal the adjustment before rising prices push the minimum wage above the federal standard.

The latest adjustment “underlines the need to break Missouri’s minimum wage away from the automatic escalator to which it is currently tied,” Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Dan Mehan said in a news release. “It causes uncertainty and positions Missouri to eventually raise its minimum wage to uncompetitive levels.”

Mehan said the chamber would fight the new minimum wage initiative as well.

Reach Rudi Keller at 573-815-1709 or e-mail rkeller@columbiatribune.com.

Groups discuss effects of cuts to social services
By RUDI KELLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 30, 2011

Office consolidation and payroll cuts in the Missouri Department of Social Services are hurting families and communities, a coalition of union and advocacy groups was told yesterday during a statewide video conference.

Organized by Missouri Jobs with Justice, the Missouri State Workers Union and Missouri Interfaith Impact, the video conference discussed the impact of changes in the Family Support Division. The conference originated on the University of Missouri campus and was linked via the Internet to groups in Springfield, Kansas City, St. Louis and Kirksville.

“We wanted to give the clients and workers affected by the changes a voice about the impact on them and how services are provided,” said Kelly Anthony of Missouri Jobs with Justice. “We are about to go into another legislative session. It is important to highlight what happens to counties when these people leave.”

The Family Support Division takes applications for food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and other welfare programs. Although state law requires the department to maintain an office in every county, the department has responded to budget cuts by leaving a single employee in many counties and consolidating work in regional locations. That happened in Central Missouri earlier this year when Audrain County caseworkers were moved to the Columbia office.

When the change was announced in July, social services Director Ron Levy said it would make the department stronger. “As a state agency, we are always looking for ways to improve operations while providing the tools needed to strengthen Missouri families,” he said in a news release issued when the change was made. “By being more efficient in the work we do behind the scenes, we can improve those frontline services that impact families.”

But Lacy Proctor of Centralia, a caseworker who was moved, said the overwhelming burden of work — the average caseload is 750, she said — and other inconveniences have hurt morale and made efforts to bring people out of poverty less effective.

“I feel a loss of purpose,” said Proctor, who credited quality casework when she was pregnant with helping her stay in school and obtain the degree that helped her get her job. “You feel like you are destined to fail every single day when you walk in the door.”

The groups participating are being asked to endorse a series of recommendations that would stop the consolidations, add workers to bring the average caseload down to 300 and increase state revenue to provide more funding for social services. Action on caseloads would require 441 new workers statewide at a cost of $12 million annually.

Consolidation can hurt small communities that relied on the handful of jobs at the county welfare office, said Dave Strickler, Mayor of Edina, the county seat in Knox County. Edina has a population of 1,100, and there were seven jobs at the social services office before consolidation, he said.

The jobs moved to Kirksville, 25 miles away. Coupled with cuts by the Missouri Department of Transportation and the U.S. Postal Service, it means harder work to fight the decline of small cities, he said.

“I thought I could count on our government to be here for our community,” he said. “People still live in Edina, and we still need our government.”

Reach Rudi Keller at 573-815-1709 or e-mail rkeller@columbiatribune.com.

Hearing on the Human and Economic Impacts of Downsizing and Consolidation within the Missouri Department of Social Services


WHEN:  Saturday, October 29th, 10:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m.

WHERE: University of Missouri, 
Lafferre Hall, Room W0015


The Missouri Jobs with Justice Public Good Project, the St Louis Workers' Rights Board (WRB), Missouri Interfaith IMPACT and CWA 6355 are organizing an investigative hearing on the substantial downsizing of Department of Social Service offices across the state, shining light on the broad impact on rural and urban populations in Missouri. Many counties have already experienced the "downsizing," limiting opportunities for families and children in those counties to apply for and/or receive critical social services.   This hearing will illuminate the problems caused by downsizing in local communities, the strain it will put on other parts of Missouri’s safety net and its providers.  Testimony will also provide alternative solutions and recommendations from front-line workers in the Family Support Division and the Children’s Division, impacted civic leaders, and concerned community members.  A panel of statewide leaders, including those from the faith community, social service provider networks, and Missouri’s farming community will hear testimony and issue a report with final recommendations to follow.

The conveners of this hearing believe that the role of public workers and the public sector are as protectors of their neighbors in times of crisis, and as promoters of economic opportunity and self-determination within their own communities.  Closing state office buildings in Missouri counties will harm the members of the community, as well as negatively impact the economic sustainability of these local communities.  Members of these communities who rely on critical and often immediately-needed services will face significant obstacles to access, and it puts Missouri’s citizens at risk.

Do you have a story to tell about a time when you needed the social safety net?  To share your experience, please email Kelly Anthony at Kelly@mojwj.org

To find out more about this hearing, please contact Kelly Anthony at  HYPERLINK "mailto:Kelly@mojwj.org" Kelly@mojwj.org or 314-644-0466.

Police officers union backs fired cop who wants his dog back

Columbia Tribune

By BRENNAN DAVID

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Columbia Police Officers Association is supporting fired Officer Rob Sanders in his quest to purchase his police dog, Fano, from the city.

• 
  

Citing a passionate response by many police officers, the Columbia Police Officers Association has thrown its support behind a fired cop who wants to purchase his canine partner from the city.

The association is requesting the 3-year-old dog, Fano, be released from city ownership to former Officer Rob Sanders, who was fired for shoving a man in a holding cell in August. Sanders’ supporters tried to drum up support to get the city to either give or sell the dog to Sanders.

The Columbia City Council has requested a report detailing the dog’s worth and the potential liabilities of selling the animal. The police department at one time told Sanders it would sell him the dog for $10,800. Sanders came up with the money through public donations, but the offer was rescinded by Chief Ken Burton when he learned about potential liabilities.

“Some are very passionate about the issue,” union Executive Director Ashley Cuttle said. “Some just wanted” the union “to step up and do what they thought is right.”

In the union’s letter to the council, Mayor Bob McDavid and City Manager Mike Matthes, Cuttle details an estimated $2,700 in kennel fees to house the dog until a new handler can be trained. She also estimates the dog’s worth to be as much as $6,500 and current medical issues that include two missing teeth.

The letter tackles the city’s presumed liability issues by noting a Missouri statute that addresses dog bites without provocation and owner liability for damages. Cuttle said the statute places liability on the owner. City Attorney Fred Boeckmann previously said he could foresee a situation in which others could allege the city knew the dog to be vicious and threatening if it ever bit someone.

Cuttle and Sanders’ supporters will be present for Monday’s city council meeting, where council members could decide the matter.

Occupy STL Protestors Ready To Hit The Streets, With Unions By Their Side

KMOX Radio

October 14, 2011 6:53 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) -  Those “Occupy St. Louis” protestors who’ve called Kiener Plaza home the last several weeks get a big boost  later today.

They’ll also be on the move.

Hundreds of local union members are reportedly ready to march side-by-side with the “Occupyers” this afternoon.

What message does group spokesman Derek Wetherell hope observers take away?

“The corporate sponsorship, pretty much, of votes and politician’s voting decisions,” Wetherell tells KMOX News.  “I feel like they don’t always necessarily vote in favor of the people they’re representing.”

As for outside claims that the local Occupy movement looks somewhat disorganized, Wetherell admits each Kiener Plaza protestor has their own reason for being there, but the larger cause of stopping corporate greed unites them all.

Protestors plan to march  on several downtown banks and then on to the Arch Grounds beginning at 3:30 Friday afternoon.

KOMU: School Board Sends Version Back to Committee

Click on the title of this post to see KOMU's take on the CPS board sending their collective bargaining policy back to the Policy Committee.

School board delays collective bargaining decision

Columbia Tribune
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Tuesday, October 11, 2011

After months of discussion and disagreement from teacher groups over the direction of a collective bargaining policy, the Columbia Board of Education decided last night to hold off on a decision and instead create a more customized policy.

No district policy is in place for collective bargaining. But in 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, a negotiation process used to reach agreements on work conditions, benefits and other issues.

The school district’s policy committee began seriously discussing a policy in the spring with a plan to vote on it in the fall. Superintendent Chris Belcher recommended a policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association that called for exclusive representation, deeming it the safest route legally. When the policy came up for discussion at last night’s meeting, board member Jonathan Sessions made a motion to send the proposal back to the policy committee for discussion.

“The reason I’m making this motion is purely because I think we have a lot of confusion. … The board received an email just today from someone who truly didn’t understand what’s going on. That’s just one concern,” Sessions said. “The other concern is that we can do better than this. We can have a custom policy that is for Columbia rather than just taking one of two options off the shelf.”

Board member Michelle Pruitt quickly seconded Sessions’ motion.

“I think it’s just an example of the fact that … this is a process,” Pruitt said. “I think it’s very good to look carefully at the process. It’s something that’s being done externally to the district that we have to react to, but we need to make sure our process is the best one for our district.”

The board voted 6-1 to table the motion, with board President Tom Rose opposing. Before the vote, Belcher asked permission to employ outside legal counsel to help the district craft its own policy.

The presidents of Columbia’s two teacher organizations said the decision wasn’t a surprise. Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association President Kari Schuster, whose organization opposed the exclusive-representation policy Belcher recommended, said she and CMSTA were pleased with the decision to discuss the issue more.

“I hope they will take input from both teacher organizations and will get an outside legal source to look to for advice,” Schuster said. “I think there’s been a lot of confusion … and this gives them time to go back and educate the masses.”

CMSTA still opposes a policy involving a binding contract with one agency, which would be “harmful to the district in many ways,” Schuster said, but hopes the policy committee will find a compromise.

The Columbia Missouri National Education Association also is willing to compromise, President Susan McClintic said, but would have preferred the board approve Belcher’s recommended policy. CMNEA has been asking the district to adopt an exclusive-representation policy for years, McClintic said.

“It’s not choosing any group, it’s not choosing a right, it’s not choosing anything except to create a process,” she said.

CMNEA wouldn’t support any policy that allows bargaining with multiple representatives, McClintic said, because it is “unconstitutional.”

The district’s policy committee will meet at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 31 at the board office, 1818 W. Worley St.

The board also approved a new technology plan, art and music curriculum and a modified bullying policy.

Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.

School board sends collective bargaining options back to committee

It's back to committee for a collective bargaining election policy in the Columbia Public Schools.  It is frustrating that some board members don't understand that they must honor the constitutional rights of teachers.   The reporter got the details of the HH and HA policies wrong below, but that doesn't really matter.  The bottom line is teachers deserve their constitutional right to choose their exclusive representative.  We need to keep telling our school board members that simple truth.

Monday, October 10, 2011 | 11:24 p.m. CDT; updated 9:00 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Columbia Missourian
BY GARRETT EVANS, JAMES AYELLO

COLUMBIA — Columbia School Board members decided by a vote of 6-1 to send two collective bargaining options back to the board's policy committee for further consideration.

The Missouri School Board Association has created multiple policies that state school districts can choose from in order to negotiate with their employees. These policies are guidelines to help districts create an effective collective bargaining process.

The first policy, called HH, would allow either for an exclusive representative, such as a teachers association, to collectively bargain with administrators, or it would let multiple representatives collectively bargain with those administrators.

The second policy, HA, provides legal ground rules for districts to negotiate with employee associations. This policy outlines election rules for employee groups and recognizes which groups are allowed to collectively bargain.

Board member Jonathan Sessions made the motion to send both policies back to the policy committee for review.

"My reasoning for making this motion is purely that I think we have a lot of confusion, and the board received an email today from someone that truly did not understand what was going on," he said.  "We can do this better."

Sessions said Columbia could have a custom policy, rather than one of the two sample options that covers 520 of the state's districts.

Board member Michelle Pruitt agreed and said that the motion was "not a bad idea."

"It's very important we get the process correct on this particular policy," she said. "We have to make sure our process is the best for the district."

Superintendent Chris Belcher noted that if the motion did pass, he would ask for permission to seek outside legal counsel that specializes in creating policy exclusive to individual districts in Missouri.

He said the Missouri School Board Association has always said these policies do not constitute something that you should just adopt, they are only frameworks to start discussion.

Belcher said he applauded the board for being so considerate of the influence they have gotten from both sides of the issue.

"Certainly you want to please everybody, and this will give us some more time to see if we can get closer to that goal," he said.

Board member Christine King also supported the motion and called the two policies "polar opposites." She said there are many community voices that need to be heard.

Tom Rose was the only board member to oppose reviewing the plans further.

"Should we decide to send this back to policy committee for revision I believe and hope that most of the policy as written will remain, and that only a few points will be changed to come to a consensus if we can't," he said.

Rose said he believes that even with legal counsel the board will still have to make a difficult choice.

"We are still going to have make a hard decision that not everyone is going to agree with," Rose said.

The policy committee meets the last Monday of every month.

Roper wrong about CMNEA positions

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Columbia Tribune

Editor, the Tribune: I appreciate Bob Roper’s comments about Columbia teachers being “dedicated, professional and hardworking under increasingly difficult circumstances.” I am constantly inspired by the work my colleagues do. I wonder whether he is aware all 600-plus members of the Columbia Missouri National Education Association, which he criticized, are the same people he praised.

It’s disappointing that Roper’s method of debating an issue was to make false statements. He announced CMNEA’s position and intentions without contacting CMNEA to find out what these are. CMNEA is the local chapter of the NEA. It has never bargained a contract, has never contributed to a school board candidate’s election and has absolutely no intentions of pursuing “fair share” fees.
CMNEA favors the exclusive representative policy because it is how bargaining is done throughout the country. No contract has been successfully bargained using multiple representation.
Roper questioned how CMNEA as an exclusive bargaining agent could help schoolchildren. Next to parents, our students’ best advocates are teachers. They work with students daily and know their needs. Teachers have successfully bargained issues such as textbooks, proper lunch times and recess breaks, technology, lower class sizes and increased services to special-needs students. Achievement is higher in states where teachers bargain. The top states in the areas of graduation rate, SAT scores, ACT scores and NAEP reading and math scores have all been bargaining for 30-plus years.
Columbia educators deserve a voice at the decision-making table — they deserve collective bargaining and have a right to representatives of their own choosing.
Kathy Steinhoff
membership chair, CMNEA
301 Fredora Ave.

Teachers are free to make a choice

By SUSAN MCCLINTIC
CMNEA President

Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 9, 2011

Great things are happening in public education as our local school district works toward creating a policy to address the collective-bargaining rights of its teachers. As Columbia Public Schools moves forward, it is important for everyone to have a clear understanding of the exclusive representation process that leads to collective bargaining, as well as how it can benefit teachers and students.

Collective bargaining is a collaborative process of negotiations used by both employers and employees to arrive at a binding agreement concerning working and learning conditions, benefits, safety and health. You’ve probably heard collective bargaining pits administrators against teachers; this is not true. In districts across the nation, collective bargaining has provided teachers and employers with the opportunity to improve the working conditions for teachers and the learning conditions for students. (An article on teacher unions published in Princeton University’s “Excellence in the Classroom” journal cited three studies that found student-teacher ratios were 7 to 12 percent lower in districts with collective bargaining — a clear benefit to students.)

In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right for public employees to collectively bargain, but it did not create the process for establishing a representative. This responsibility falls on each local school district. The Missouri School Boards Association created two model policies for districts to consider. One version calls for the traditional election of a single representative, while the other allows for the election of multiple representatives.

With the multiple representation option, there will be two or more representatives — probably one from the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association (CMSTA) and one from the Columbia Missouri National Education Association (CMNEA) — with voting rights based on percentages of their membership.

While this sounds like a sensible option, multiple representation has some faults. If CPS educators were to choose this option, employees who are not members of CMNEA or CMSTA would have no representation, no vote, no voice. That means about one-third of CPS employees would not benefit from this type of collective-bargaining agreement. In addition, reaching a binding contract with two or more groups has no legal precedent. Multiple representation is like sending all Senate candidates to Jefferson City and telling them to conduct business based on the percentage of their groups’ membership. Multiple representation is not a democratic process and is awkward and inefficient.

Our other option is exclusive representation, in which all teachers, regardless of their memberships, would vote to select a bargaining agent to act as our voice in discussions and negotiations. Parkway, Fort Zumwalt, Wentzville, Rockwood, Park Hill, Independence and Francis Howell are some Missouri districts that have successful collective-bargaining agreements with their employees through an exclusive representative. Students and teachers in those districts are seeing the benefits of having a professional, dedicated, representative organization that works collaboratively to solve problems and move the district forward for the betterment of the entire community. That is the relationship the CMNEA has striven to have with CPS and would continue to have if chosen by the teachers as their exclusive bargaining representative.

What if CMNEA is chosen by the teachers as the bargaining agent? Does that mean teachers will be forced to join CMNEA to have representation?

No. For many years, CMSTA was the exclusive representative in CPS and teachers had to be a CMSTA member to serve and vote on their committees or speak to the school board. CMSTA did not work for a binding agreement. The exclusive representation policy currently under consideration is different. This policy allows each educator to vote on a binding contract. The elected exclusive rep has a duty of fair representation, a duty to represent everyone in the bargaining unit for all items in the contract. If CMNEA becomes the exclusive bargaining rep, our organization would represent the interests of every teacher in CPS, not just those who are CMNEA members.

Will teachers have to pay a fair share fee?

Fair share brings more confusion and conversation. Fair share is a negotiated fee charged to the non-union members of a bargaining unit to cover the cost of the bargained agreement. No public school collective-bargaining agreement in Missouri includes fair share. No educational employee in Missouri can be forced to join or drop any group based on whether he or she belongs to the exclusive representative group. CMNEA does not support the use of fair share.

CMNEA supports the democratic right of teachers to choose who can best represent them with a single voice on the issues affecting their classrooms and their students. We believe the agreements the exclusive representative and the school district arrive at will be beneficial for all parties involved. We believe teachers in Columbia Public Schools have the right, the wisdom and the integrity to decide for themselves who that voice should be.

The Supreme Court has clearly ruled on representation. It has never been clearer that CPS educators deserve their civil right to vote for an exclusive representative of their choice.

Susan McClintic is a teacher and past president of CMNEA.

Union Workers Join Growing Anti-Wall St. Protests

Even NBC agrees, "There's something happening here..."

 

Stephen Stills song, For What It's Worth starts with lyrics that are appropriate today - "There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear..." Following the demonstrations across Europe, the labor union uprisings in Wisconsin, Ohio and other Midwestern states and the Arab Spring movement, comes Occupy Wall Street. And although the mainstream media clearly don't know what it's about, ("But they don't have a list of legislative demands!") working people who make up the bottom 99% of America understand it in our bones. This is about the abuse of money and power by the top 1% who control 40% of the wealth in our country. And it's about the failure of the vast majority of our political leadership to represent us, the 99%. And it's about the frightening future that we - and our sons and daughters - face in a world organized to maximize profit for the top 1%, while keeping the rest of us scrambling to piece together a decent living.


You can do more than watch the occupation on TV, you can go to City Hall and be a part of Occupy Como. Union members know better than most that we need some basic change in this country. Join the group at City Hall for however long you have and take them some food, drinks, blankets or cash to keep them going. As the 1970 Gil Scott Heron song says, "The revolution will not be televised."

Occupy Como protest follows national movement

Parker Eshelman 

Protesters hold up signs Monday in front of City Hall at Eighth Street and Broadway, participating in an effort that has lasted more than a week in conjunction with a nationwide protest movement. A group known as Occupy Como has led the local effort, and many who joined in Monday night were specifically focused on protesting the proposed rezoning of Columbia’s Regency Mobile Home Park.

By Andrew Denney

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

For more than a week, anyone passing by Columbia’s City Hall might have noticed demonstrators, ranging from a single person to more than 50 people, chanting and waving signs.
The largest group came last night to speak out on a specific local issue, but a minority of those participating have had a presence there night and day for eight full days. Those demonstrators are the members of a group known as Occupy Como.
The protests are modeled after the significantly larger Occupy Wall Street, a protest movement against corporate greed that has raged in New York City for more than two weeks. Similar movements have sprung up in cities throughout the country, including in Missouri. Social networking websites have added fuel to the cause: Occupy Kansas City has more than 1,500 “likes” on its Facebook page, and OccupySTL has more than 3,000. Columbia’s has more than 1,000.
Jef Hamby, an organizer for the group, said there are about 15 “core” members who have had a frequent presence at City Hall. He said others have joined in from time to time, inflating the number of those in front of City Hall to about 30 on Saturday and more than 50 yesterday.
Sierra Jackson, who said she is preparing to start school at Columbia College, said she ran across the demonstrators Thursday while walking downtown and took a minute to hear them out. She said she has been standing with the group each day ever since.
“I would like it to be one voice, one vote — not a dollar a vote,” Jackson said.
The crowd yesterday was made up mostly of those who oppose a measure to rezone the Regency Mobile Home Park in favor of a student housing complex. From conference rooms inside City Hall, where Columbia City Council members calmly discussed a planned new parking garage during a pre-meeting work session, the shouting and chanting of the demonstrators — and honking from passing motorists — could be faintly heard.
And while demonstrators who came to address the Regency rezoning proposal were focused on a specific civic issue, Hamby said the point of Occupy Como is to bring groups with different ideas and causes together. Hamby said that although those who have stood in front of City Hall since the beginning of the demonstration have differed in their backgrounds and their reasons for being there, there has been a central theme in their presence: that 99 percent of the country’s population is getting left behind by the 1 percent who are at the top of the economic pecking order and who make “all the decisions” for the rest of the country.
Although Occupy Como and other protest groups are in part taking aim at the political elite, the group has adopted bylaws and takes votes on issues. Hamby said the group has adopted principles of Occupy Wall Street and made some rules of its own. Hamby said he did not know how long the group would continue to camp out in front of City Hall.

Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.

Labor Movement Rolls Into Wall Street Occupation

The occupation of Wall Street is getting interesting, with the labor movement getting involved.  There is even a local angle - have you seen the occupation at City Hall (and across from Landmark Bank and Boone County Bank)?  Stop and talk to these young people.  I did and they are articulate on why they are there:  they don't want their future taken from them to pay for more corporate profits.  The COMO Facebook address is: http://www.facebook.com/OccupyCOMO?sk=wall.  Who said, "Young people today are so apathetic."  Not all of them!

 

Friday Sep 30, 2011 9:22 am

By Michelle Chen

An Occupy Wall Street participant at Zuccotti Park a.k.a. Liberty Plaza, on September 26.   (Photo by Sasha Kimel on Flickr.)

The steel and concrete of Lower Manhattan comes alive every day during rush hour, when gray suits pulse through subway tunnels and the city's arteries get choked with street vendors, construction workers and other folks hustling to make a living. Now that a bunch of rabble-rousers have occupied the neighborhood, the workers who form Gotham's backbone are starting to reclaim their turf as well.
It may be too early to draw parallels between the Occupy Wall Street protests at Zuccotti Park (aka Liberty Plaza) and their antecedents in Tahrir Square and Madison. But the movements suggest a general trajectory of grassroots organizing: a spark of protest led by younger activists, followed by the support of labor organizations, bringing up the rear and then moving to the fore.
By Wednesday, the Village Voice reported, the historically militant Transport Workers Union had voted to back, and provide food and services to, the Occupy Wall Street movement. In a video recorded during an evening protest, TWU Local 100 member Christine Williams declared, "The people have finally woke up. And we're here and we're staying and we're not going anywhere."
TWU spokesperson Jim Gannon told the Voice: " A motion was brought up to endorse the protests' goals; I don't know why it took us so long to do it." Better late than never, the union says it now plans to amass on the afternoon of October 5 and march to Zuccotti Park.
Other labor-oriented solidarity actions have been undertaken by professors at the City University of New York affiliated with the Professional Staff Congress union (of which this author is also a member). Their group, Solidarity with OWS, is organizing a demonstration against police abuse this Friday afternoon. (Other notable lefty academic allies include Frances Fox Piven, Christian Parenti, and Stanley Aronowitz.)
According to Crain's New York Business, local unions are collaborating with community-based groups such as Make the Road New York, Coalition for the Homeless and Community Voices Heard -- all organizations that are in daily contact with the struggles of the city's poor and working-class.
The city's doormen, security guards and maintenance workers see common ground with the occupation, too. The Huffington Post reports that their union, SEIU 32BJ, said that a planned October 12 rally would embrace the current protests' theme:

"The call went out over a month ago, before actually the occupancy of Wall Street took place," said 32BJ spokesman Kwame Patterson. Now, he added, "we're all coming under one cause, even though we have our different initiatives."

The General Assembly, a proudly amorphous body that is helping coordinate the demonstrations, has set up a Labor Support and Outreach Working Group, which, according to September 29 meeting minutes posted to the Assembly's website, has encouraged protesters to join a demonstration of the Communication Workers of America nearby. Organizers are reportedly gearing up "to carry out a very creative direct action in support of the phone workers."
The convergence between the Wall Street occupation and labor activism may escalate in the coming days amid a standoff between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and public sector workers. The statewide Public Employees Federation just voted narrowly to reject a five-year contract that would have staved off layoffs at the expense of higher healthcare costs and wage freezes. On Tuesday, PEF union president Kenneth Brynien told reporters that when members saw the concessions demanded of them, "The sacrifices were too great, and they said, 'Enough is enough."
That axiom would fit nicely among the panoply of anticapitalist slogans that protesters have displayed in Downtown Manhattan, proclaiming "People over Profit" and "Heal America, Tax Wall Street."
As sister campaigns emerge in other areas under the banner of "Occupy Together," the Wall Street actions could serve as a kind of petri dish for future protest tactics, building on the occupational groundwork laid by smaller demonstrations, such as a recent encampment at City Hall to protest budget cuts, and a Wall Street protest in May that drew union support from 1199 SEIU and the United Federation of Teachers.
As ITT's Akito Yoshikane reported, the lifeblood of the protests has been the young and the frustrated. But the occupation also represents swelling resentment across all sectors of society -- covering expressly the 99 percent of us who are getting screwed and shafted by corporate moguls and, more tragically, our own elected representatives.
Yet the proactive anger has been building in the labor movement far from Wall Street. An editorial by the Socialist Worker points to protests in recent months -- by longshoremen in Washington, striking hospital workers in California, and the groundbreaking Verizon strikers -- as signs of new "fighting mood" among the rank and file:

Workers haven't yet prevailed in all of these struggles, nor will all of them win in the future. But what unites these fights is the activism and solidarity on display, despite a hostile corporate media and aggressive employers.
Labor's new sparks of resistance are proof positive that the defiant spirit of the battle in Wisconsin last winter wasn't a flash in the pan, but a sign that growing numbers of working people are rediscovering their capacity to struggle. After decades of a one-sided class war, the fightback has begun.

Whether organized labor is finally catching up to youth activists, or the young occupiers are at last rekindling an older legacy of mass resistance, the cross-fertilization of movements is underway. Don't ask the diverse alliance to state their agenda -- the movement is organically structured, with no formal "list of demands" yet, and that's part of the fun. Not everyone came to Wall Street knowing exactly what they wanted, but everyone there today knows they've had enough, and that they're not the only ones.

Postal workers rally for legislation

August Kryger 

Retired letter carrier Mike Lawson, left, rallies Tuesday along with other U.S. Postal Service workers on South Providence Road outside U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s Columbia office. The group’s rally coincided with others around the country urging congressmen to support House Resolution 1351, which deals with the financial crisis facing the U.S. Postal Service.

By Andrew Denney

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Postal workers rallied across the country yesterday to show support for a funding bill working its way through Congress that union officials say would help stop financial bleeding for the U.S. Postal Service.
In Columbia, a crowd of about 50 gathered in front of the office of Republican U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer on South Providence Road, holding signs and attracting honks from passing motorists. Attendees said they were working to raise awareness for the bill, which as of this morning had not been brought before the U.S. House for a full vote.
The Postal Service faces a deficit of more than $8 billion this year. House Resolution 1351, a bill mostly backed by Democrats, would allow nearly $7 billion from the agency’s pension fund to be transferred into its operating budget to help cover the deficit. A 2006 law requires the Postal Service to make annual contributions to its pension fund, which unions contend is now overfunded. The intent of that law was to fund the next 75 years of the agency’s pension obligations within a 10-year span.
The nationwide demonstrations also were intended to call awareness to a Republican plan, HR 2309, which would lay off more than 100,000 workers from the Postal Service, close offices around the country and end Saturday mail service. The cutbacks also were included in a budget proposed by President Barack Obama.
Chris Reed, a Columbia letter carrier and president of the National Association of Letter Carriers Local 763, said it would behoove members of Congress in rural districts to oppose plans to end Saturday service. He said HR 1351 would bring financial stability to the Postal Service without deep cuts in service. “We aren’t asking for any public money, we’re just asking for our money back,” Reed said.
Jamie Nourse, a maintenance worker at the postal facility at Columbia Regional Airport, said the Postal Service is not being treated fairly by the federal government.
“No other organization, public or private, has this burden on them,” Nourse said of the proposed cuts.
Luetkemeyer spokesman Paul Sloca said the congressman supports plans to maintain Saturday service. In a statement issued by Luetkemeyer’s office, Luetkemeyer said he wants to work with his colleagues in Congress to ensure a “high level of service to all Missourians.”
“While the Postal Service must adapt to meet the challenges of the future, these financial difficulties should not be used as a pretense to transform the USPS into an organization that provides a higher level of service for urban America than it does for rural America,” he said.

Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.

Teacher bargaining proves to be complex

It looks like the CPS school board will vote on a voting process the teachers will use to chose their bargaining representative on October 10.  This article shows that the Policy Committee is getting it, the HH1 Exclusive Representative policy is the only system that makes sense.  It is also the only system that is constitutional.

By JANESE SILVEY
Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Columbia Board of Education is in a sticky situation when it comes to collective bargaining, but doing nothing isn’t an option.

“People have this idea the district can say we’re not going to enter into collective bargaining,” board member Helen Wade said. “We can’t do that. As the law stands, we have an obligation to allow for that to occur.”

Wade, an attorney, outlined collective bargaining issues to a policy committee made up of Columbia Public Schools representatives, community members and students yesterday.

The group took no action on the proposed policy, which would allow for an exclusive representative to bargain on behalf of teachers.

The district and its two primary teachers’ groups have been haggling over representation since a Missouri Supreme Court ruling in 2007 opened the door to collective bargaining for public-sector employees.

Initially, the district, along with other public entities, waited for state lawmakers to pass legislation setting guidelines for bargaining. That never happened, leaving the school district in the dark about how to proceed.

Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed in other Missouri communities by public employees wanting to exercise their bargaining rights. That’s going to happen to Columbia Public Schools unless the board proceeds, Wade warned.

“We prefer not to get sued and to do things in a prescribed framework,” she said.

But adopting a bargaining policy isn’t simple in Columbia. Some 600 of the 1,500 teachers here are members of the Missouri National Education Association. The school district said another third of the teachers belong to the Missouri State Teachers Association and a third of the teachers aren’t affiliated with either group. Columbia MSTA President Kari Schuster would not say how many members the local chapter has.

The policy heading to the school board next month would allow teachers to vote for either CMNEA or CMSTA to exclusively represent them or to vote for no representation.

But CMSTA and some board members favor an alternative process that would let teachers first decide whether they want to be represented by one group or by multiple groups.

“Having that option is valid,” said Schuster, an ex officio member of the committee.

Representatives trying to bargain on behalf of a collective group would have to be on the same page, though, Wade said. “What happens if two people who represent that unit don’t agree?” she asked.

And that would probably happen here. The two groups have starkly different ideas when it comes to working with administrators. MSTA is known for being an administrator-friendly advisory group, while NEA is viewed as a more powerful negotiating agent.

The two groups have been at odds in Columbia Public Schools for years. Historically, administrators have only recognized the local MSTA group. After the court ruling, the district began allowing CMNEA equal face time in hopes that a meet-and-confer process would negate a request for exclusive representation.

One advantage of having a single representative would be that the group would speak on behalf of all teachers, even those not affiliated with either association, CMNEA President Susan McClintic said. Non-NEA members would not be expected to pay dues, she has said.

Tom Stone, a community member on the committee, said having multiple representatives would be like trying to get children to work together.

“It’s hard to come to consensus,” he said. The policy allowing for a vote on an exclusive representative, he said, “is really the best version.”

Reach Janese Silvey at 573-815-1705 or e-mail jsilvey@columbiatribune.com.

Churchill Museum to host Smithsonian exhibit on labor

Local labor unions are part of the committee working on special local events around this exhibit. We are lucky to have a Smithsonian exhibit as close as Fulton.  The fact that the exhibit is about work and working people is amazing!  We will see you there. 

 

Columbia Business Times

By CBT Staff
Sep 16, 2011

Plans have been finalized for the National Churchill Museum to host its first ever Smithsonian Institution exhibition entitled “The Way We Worked.”
Scheduled for display Feb.11 through March 10, the exhibit shares the stories of how work became a central element in American culture and the many changes affecting the work force and the work environments during the past 100 years.
“We are excited to have been selected for this magnificent exhibit, which will focus on how work has evolved not only in America but in central Missouri as well,” said Dr. Rob Havers, executive director of the National Churchill Museum. “One of the requirements for being selected to host the exhibit is that the museum will create components unique to our exhibition that focus on the history of work in Callaway County and the surrounding area.”
A committee of city and chamber officials, local historians and museum personnel is working on the local exhibit components and additional public activities in relation to the exhibit.
This traveling Smithsonian Institution exhibition is sponsored by the Missouri Humanities Council’s Museum on Main Street program. Missouri is the first state to receive this exhibit, which will be visiting five additional Missouri cities throughout 2011 and 2012.
“The Missouri Humanities Council hopes the Fulton residents and those in the surrounding areas will enjoy the exhibition and think a little deeper about the journey of American workers and how that is reflected in the world today, both locally and nationally,” said Geoff Giglierano, executive director of the Missouri Humanities Council.
The National Churchill Museum, located on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton, is the only North American institution fully devoted to immortalizing the life and work of Churchill.

Union divisions surface. Board to tackle bargaining policy.

As a public service, this blog provides the following advice to the CPS Board of Education.  They are so close to following the Missouri constitution.  The last step of passing an election policy that meets constitutional standards will complete a thoughtful and open process:

Collective bargaining and exclusive representation are legal terms with legal definitions. The National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, and thirty-four state collective bargaining laws have been passed in the decades since 1959.  Numerous court decisions have been rendered to interpret and define these laws.    Legal scholars tell us that exclusive representation is inherent in collective bargaining. 
 
Teachers are not a separate class of people.  Teachers have the same constitutional right to equal protection under the law as other public employees.    Teachers  should not be forced to clear additional hurdles to elect the representative of their choice, while other public employees are allowed to utilize the recognized and traditional way of electing a representative (state law 105.500).   Vote for the simple, one step exclusive bargaining election process and let the teachers choose their representative.  There is no reason to bring the Missouri Supreme Court into this process.

By CATHERINE MARTIN
Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Board of Education Vice President Christine King said it all when she noted that no matter which collective bargaining policy the board adopts, someone is going to be upset.

That was clear as teachers and district staff sat divided by an aisle at the district administration building, 1818 W. Worley St., last night, and members of Columbia’s two teachers unions sat on different sides of the room while the board discussed collective bargaining.

The meeting served as a first read of a collective bargaining policy Columbia Public Schools is considering adopting that calls for exclusive representation, a version favored by the Columbia Missouri National Education Association, CMNEA. Members of the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association, CMSTA, however, favor a version that allows multiple representatives to collectively bargain or sticking with the current policy, which is more of a “meet and confer” model.

The exclusive representation model, Superintendent Chris Belcher said, is the safest policy for legal purposes and consistency. But CMSTA members have a number of concerns with the policy, namely that members’ voices wouldn’t be heard if the district adopted an exclusive representation model.

“Some in this room prefer MSTA not be an option for teachers and want all of us to be forced to join another organization that is more expensive, more radical and, frankly, more concerned about contract obligations than what happens in the classroom,” President Kari Schuster said.

Other CMSTA members questioned why the district needs to adopt a new policy at all, citing benefits of what they call a more collaborative effort. And some cited concern that the fees collected from nonmembers would be charged by the exclusive representative elected to negotiate with the district.

But CMNEA members, including President Susan McClintic, said if CMNEA were chosen to represent teachers, the organization would not charge fees to nonmembers. The exclusive representation model, which also allows teachers to vote to have no representative, mirrors a voting process Americans are most familiar with, CMNEA members said.

“We believe this version allows for employees that do not belong to a union to be represented. In Policy 2, unaffiliated employees would have no voice and no representation,” McClintic said. “We believe there should be one unified voice for educators in the district, and Version 1 delivers that opportunity.”

After several teachers and district employees came forward to speak on behalf of both groups, the board also showed division on the issue.

“This is hard for me. I’ve worked with many of you, and a lot of you are my friends, and seeing you sitting on opposite sides of the aisle makes me uncomfortable as a board member,” said Jan Mees, who worked in the district for 22 years. “In my heart of hearts, I am adamantly opposed to changing the current practice.”

The policy committee will discuss the issue of collective bargaining again later this month. The board likely will vote on a policy at its Oct. 10 meeting.

This article was published on page A14 of the Tuesday, September 13, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune.

 More like this story

Why limit teachers to one bargaining agent?- August 28, 2011 2 a.m.
Collective bargaining heads to school board- August 25, 2011 2 p.m.
School board eyes policies on bargaining- July 29, 2011 2 p.m.
Teacher collective bargaining policy in works- April 21, 2011 2 p.m.
Teacher rep tells board of division- April 13, 2010 2 p.m.

Columbia School Board weighs collective bargaining options

The Columbia Public Schools is way ahead of the city, because they understand that employees have a constitutional right to bargain collectively.  The CPS board just needs to get it right when devising the election process that will allow teachers to choose their bargaining representative.  

Columbia Missourian

Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:26 p.m. CDT; updated 8:46 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, September 13, 2011
BY GARRETT EVANS, JAMES AYELLO

COLUMBIA — Members of the Columbia School Board were divided Monday on whether to adopt a collective bargaining policy or to keep the "meet and confer" system currently in place. 

The discussion began with a report from Columbia branches of the Missouri National Education Association and the Missouri State Teachers Association, which each represent roughly one-third of the teachers in the district. The remaining third of Columbia's teachers are unaffiliated.

Susan McClintic, president of the Columbia education association and a second-grade teacher at Alpha Heart Lewis Elementary, showed support for the first proposed collective bargaining policy.

This policy would allow one bargaining representative to speak for all teachers and district employees. Most likely, the representative would be from one of the two associations.

"We believe this policy is the best practice, as it mirrors what most voting Americans are familiar with — a one-step election on who should represent them in a collectively bargained, binding agreement," McClintic said.

McClintic added that there is no precedent of a policy like the second resulting in a successful agreement.

This second policy, which allows for multiple representatives, is one that isn't commonly used by districts across the country, Superintendent Chris Belcher said in July.

This model, which would allow for multiple representatives during the bargaining process, is one that teacher association president Kari Schuster would support if the current "meet and confer" method is changed. During this process district officials confer with teachers but ultimately make decisions about employment conditions.

Belcher said the second version could be legally challenged if representatives are unable to reach an agreement on bargaining conditions.

But board member Jan Mees "adamantly" opposed the exclusive representation model outlined in the first proposal on Monday night.

Mees said exclusive bargaining "is not Columbia Public Schools, not good for the children" and strongly supports the second version, if a policy must be chosen.

When board members opened the floor for public discussion, teachers from each association voiced their opinions.

Members of the local branch of the Missouri State Teachers Association expressed concern about the lack of voice among both organizations if the first option is allowed.

Missouri National Education Association members stated the need for a strong, unified voice among teachers in the district, which they believe the first policy option will allow.

The next meeting will be at 7:30 a.m. Sept. 22.

City officials advise against labor deals Council hears union concerns.

Under Article 1, Section 29 of the Missouri constitution, "...employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing."  How can Columbia city officials "advise against" honoring the constitutional rights of employees.  Do city official want to be sued?
 
Columbia Missourian
By ANDREW DENNEY
Tuesday, September 13, 2011

At a Columbia City Council work session last night in which labor unions for city employees outlined grievances, city staffers advised the council against authorizing the city to enter collective bargaining agreements with the unions.

Currently, city administrators talk with public employee labor unions through the meet-and-confer process, in which unions can bring forward issues but the city is under no obligation to agree to a union’s demands. It has generally been the city’s practice to avoid entering collective bargaining agreements.

Union representatives last night made the case for binding agreements between city workers and their employers. But city staffers countered that entering into contracts with unions could compromise the city’s flexibility to contain costs — such as through wage freezes — during hard fiscal times.
Paul Prendergast, a representative of the Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, said entering into binding contracts with labor unions would assure city employees that their bosses would hold up their end of the bargain.

“It gives the union and it gives the workers the respect and the dignity that they deserve,” Prendergast said. Among several demands, Local 773 has said the city should pay two hours’ time for a union steward to investigate complaints.

Local 773, which has changed names several times over the past few decades, had entered an agreement with the city in 1982, but a provision allows the council to alter the agreement at any time. Prendergast said the union began representing Public Works employees in 1978 during a strike of Solid Waste Division workers. He said the city had asked the union to help broker a deal and that the union has been representing Public Works employees ever since. The union also represents Boone County and University of Missouri employees.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which represents employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said the union has entered agreements with similar departments in smaller cities, such as Kirkwood and Hannibal, and that an agreement between the city and Local 2 on employee pay could help bridge a wage gap between Columbia workers and workers in those cities.

Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010. The union has said an across-the-board 25-cent-per-hour pay raise for city employees is too small.

City Manager Mike Matthes said binding agreements can lead to hard decisions when municipal budgets go south. He said while he was an assistant city manager in Des Moines, Iowa, binding agreements between the city government and labor unions were “how we did business.” But he said because of the agreements, the Des Moines city government was forced to lay off workers in tight budget years, rather than take less-drastic measures.

City Attorney Fred Boeckmann told the labor representatives that even one-year agreements, which Local 773 has asked for, could lead the unions to ask for longer agreements in the future.

“You want one year now,” Boeckmann said. “That’s the camel’s nose in the tent.”

Matthes advised that no changes to city labor policies be made in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.

Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.

This article was published on page A2 of the Tuesday, September 13, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune. Click here to Subscribe.


More like this story

City council to hear union reps’ concerns- September 12, 2011 2 p.m.
Wisconsin labor clash ignites debate elsewhere- February 22, 2011 2 p.m.
City budget has no room for employee raises- August 31, 2010 2 p.m.
Workers seek alternate cut in city payroll- September 9, 2009 1:59 p.m.
Law reform is long overdue; act levels field for bargaining- February 15, 2009