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

Labor groups present proposals to City Council about wages, bargaining

Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:21 p.m. CDT
BY ALEXANDRIA BACA

COLUMBIA — Three labor groups that represent city employees presented proposals for higher wages and bargaining agreements to the City Council on Monday night.

Groups representing workers for the Water and Light, Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments and Columbia police officers have been negotiating with city officials since May on issues including wages and work contacts.

The City Council is not allowed to negotiate with employee groups, but is instead informed of negotiations by City Manager Mike Matthes. However, the council will ultimately decide whether their requests are approved.

Columbia police officers

Ashley Cuttle, executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association, presented her union’s requests to the City Council last.

The association presented only one request, the highest priority from an initial list of five proposals.

That priority is to reduce "salary compression" in the department. This occurs when new hires are given a starting salary higher than predecessors', whose pay is often at a stand-still because of tight budgets.

For the Columbia Police Department, this has resulted in situations in which superiors are paid less than the workers they manage.

In previous fiscal years, the department relieved this compression for the deputy chief, captains and lieutenants. “This year, it’s the sergeants’ turn,” Cuttle said.

By law, the Columbia Police Department had to ask City Council for permission. As a compromise, the police chief is only asking to do it for the most severely affected police sergeants.

About $45,000 worth of raises would be given to these sergeants using in-house funds budgeted by the police chief.

If the council gave the police chief permission to fix the salary compression for some sergeants, it would signify an act of good faith on the part of the city to continue what was started in previous fiscal years, Cuttle said.

It would also be a morale boost for the department.

“The Columbia Police Department already has a problem with recruitment and retention,” Cuttle remarked.

Water and Light employees

Rick Weirich spoke for Local 2 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents employees of the city’s Water and Light Department. Weirich said the union hopes for progress on three issues:

• The union said the city has been unwilling to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement with the union. Union members "want the security of an agreement, with predictable terms and conditions,” Weirich said.

• Workers are also unsatisfied with the 25 cent per hour wage increase proposed by the city, Weirich said. The union asked for wage increases of 2 percent for top-tier employees and 4 percent for other employees.

• The union contends that employees who benefit from the collective bargaining of the union should pay dues or the equivalent of dues to the union.

Other city departments

Parks and Recreation employees, along with those who work for the Public Works Department and the Municipal Power Plant, were represented by Local 773 of the Laborers' International Union of North America.

Paul Prendergast, a lawyer for Local 773, lobbied the city for a one-year work ordinance. A work ordinance is a type of city ordinance dealing with the working terms and conditions of a certain group, said Margrace Buckler, director of human resources for Columbia.

“Money has nothing to do with it,” Prendergast said. “What we’re asking is that the city agree that they are bound by the terms of the agreement.”

First Ward Councilman Fred Schmidt expressed the depth of the requests made by the three labor unions.

“I’ve heard quite a few complaints that are highly technical,” he said.

Matthes told council members there is no deadline for the requests presented at the work session. However, the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be voted on by the City Council in October.

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 19 at 7 p.m.

Woman fired for backing a union

Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011
BY JOSH EIDELSON

Last month, Target fired Tashawna Green — but not for being bad at her job. They fired her, she says, for trying to make her job better.

Green, a 21-year-old single mom, was the most public supporter of a campaign to unionize the workers at her Long Island, N.Y., store. Before an unsuccessful union vote, she told The New York Times and other media outlets about the challenge of supporting her daughter on $8 an hour and insufficient hours. Her photo appeared in several newspapers.

Target, which has more than 1,760 American stores, earned $704 million in profits in the second quarter. Like its big-box competitor Walmart, Target has zero union employees in the United States.

That means none of Target's workers may bargain collectively over wages or the company's refusal to schedule more workers for full-time hours. More than 50 of Costco's nearly 600 stores, in contrast, are unionized.

Target isn't claiming Green didn't show up to work or couldn't do the job. Instead, the company put out a statement saying she was fired for acting "in an overly hostile, disruptive manner."

Green and representatives of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union say that's just a tricky way of saying she wanted to join a union, and Target doesn't want its employees to have that option.

The UFCW is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, saying Target illegally punished her for engaging in activism.

It would be nice to say that what happened to Green is unusual or that going to the government means she'll get justice. But the truth is that companies fire workers for union activity all the time, and they often get away with it.

Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than a third of companies respond to union elections by firing union activists. Other tactics that make workers fear losing their jobs are even more common, according to the institute.

Under the current law, companies dead-set on keeping out unions have a lot to gain by firing workers like Green. Firing union supporters removes them from the workplace and sends a chilling message to their co-workers.

Since none of us is perfect, it can be hard to prove to the government that union activism was the reason someone was fired — with appeals, the process can take years.

Even if a worker wins a case, usually the stiffest punishment a company faces is bringing the worker back to work, paying the wages she missed (minus any money earned at another job in the meantime) and posting a notice saying that it won't fire workers for union organizing in the future.

Unfortunately, that's a small price to pay for refusing to negotiate with your employees over their wages and benefits.

During the two years that Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, it looked like the Employee Free Choice Act might pass. The bill would have tripled the damages for companies that fire workers for union activism, as well as given workers the option of winning union recognition just by signing up a majority of their co-workers.

This majority sign-up ("card check") solution, which is the main way workers have won the opportunity to join unions in recent years, sparked a debate over its fairness. But there wasn't enough discussion of the problem that inspired it.

Workers like Green, who speak up to improve their jobs, too often lose their jobs as a result.

Workers who step up to organize their workplaces are really whistle-blowers. They break a silence that can otherwise leave people thinking that the problems they're experiencing are theirs alone.

They create an avenue for addressing workplace issues that can otherwise hurt not only workers but also their consumers and communities.

These workplace whistle-blowers deserve the respect of our culture and the protections of our legal system.

Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a former union organizer. He wrote this commentary for otherwords.org. His website is www.josheidelson.com.

City council to hear union reps’ concerns

Union activity in Columbia is picking up.

By ANDREW DENNEY
Monday, September 12, 2011

Labor unions representing city workers will have a chance to air their grievances to the Columbia City Council tonight at a special work session.

Union representatives will have the council’s ear on several issues pertaining to city workers, including pay raises City Manager Mike Matthes proposed for the coming fiscal year and the city’s rules of engagement for labor unions.

Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which covers employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said Matthes’ proposed 25-cent-per-hour raise does not do enough for workers who have to deal with higher health care insurance deductibles. With more expenses, Weirich said, the pay raise comes out to about 8 cents per hour.

Weirich also said the union is pushing for the city to adopt collective bargaining rules. The city’s ordinance regarding labor talks now follows the meet-and-confer process and prohibits collective bargaining between council members and labor unions. With a meet-and-confer process, Weirich said, the city’s administration is required to meet with union representatives to hear their concerns, but the administration is under no obligation to satisfy a union’s demands.

But with collective bargaining, Weirich said, it would be more likely a binding agreement between the city and unions could be reached. He said Water and Light employees have said the city has not been following its own ordinances regarding employee grievance procedures.

“They’re not wanting to play by the rules, it seems like to us,” Weirich said. Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010 after the employees contacted the union, he said.

Weirich said a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision that allows teachers’ unions to take part in collective bargaining with districts should also extend to municipal employees.

Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, will also come before the council tonight to discuss disparities in policies between the 12 divisions of the department, said Regina Guevara, a union representative.

The Columbia Police Officers Association also will address the council to discuss pay raises for police sergeants. City spokeswoman Toni Messina said the city could consider the issue in preparations for the fiscal year 2013 budget but said city leaders did not want to give higher raises to one particular group of employees in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.

The work session will be at 6 p.m. in conference rooms 1A and 1B at City Hall.

This Labor Day, let’s work to restore balance

Hey!  The Columbia Tribune ran a pro-union commentary on Labor Day!  This is the first time I can remember them running anything about labor unions on Labor Day.  Thanks Tribune!

By KIMBERLY FREEMAN BROWN
Sunday, September 4, 2011

What a year it’s been for working families. Since last Labor Day, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on the middle class from CEOs and corporate-backed lawmakers in workplaces, in the states and on Capitol Hill.

Millions are still jobless, and income inequality is at an all-time high, with black and Latino families bearing a hugely disproportionate share of the burden.

The good news? We’ve already started to turn back the tide. Grass-roots mobilizations in Wisconsin and across the country are rooted in a growing awareness that workers joining together in unions are a vital counterbalance to the CEOs and corporate-backed politicians who ran our economy into the ground.

After all, we have unions to thank for a lot of things we take for granted: the minimum wage, the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, health and safety standards. And studies show a large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.

One of the best things we can do for our economy is ensure that workers who want to have a union have a fair chance to do so. In June, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed a rule intended to accomplish just that by cutting back on costly litigation and needless delays that stand in the way of a fair vote for workers. It’s a modest proposal, but given the economic crisis we find ourselves in, an important one.

Predictably, the same corporate interests and right-wing politicians rolling back workers’ rights nationwide are opposing the NLRB, and they’re working overtime to malign unions at every opportunity, hoping Americans will forget everything that unions have done and continue to do to help workers.

This Labor Day, we’ve got to fight back harder than ever for a fair vote at work and a fair shake in the economy.

Kimberly Freeman Brown is executive director of American Rights at Work, a labor policy and advocacy organization.