HAROLD MEYERSON
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
http://prospect.org/article/post-new-deal-america-needs-unions
JUNE 15, 2012
Those who think workers only needed to organize in the bad old days need to face the hard truth: We're living in them.
One of the unfortunate consequences of the still more unfortunate failure of the unions’ effort to recall Wisconsin governor Scott Walker earlier this month is the gloating and schadenfreude that’s come forth from labor’s enemies. Some comes straight up, as in this column from Charles Krauthammer. Some comes with the caveat that private sector unions are fine in their place, but public sector unions have no place at all, an opinion expressed in this blog post from Chuck Lane. (I confine myself here to offerings from my Washington Post colleagues, but they’re representative of the breed.) As I noted in my response to Lane, it would be nice if these defenders of private-sector unions had bestirred themselves to join the battle for labor law reform in 2010, since under the current labor law, workers effectively have no protection from being fired when they seek to join a union. As it is, Lane, Mickey Kaus and their fellow union critics endorse private-sector unions in the abstract, but actual unions invariably draw their condemnation.
One of the most common arguments against unions is that they were necessary in the bad old days, when sweatshops abounded, wages were low, and the wage-and-hour legislation of the New Deal was yet to be enacted. They were needed in the pre-New Deal economy, but have been superfluous since. What the argument misses is that we’re now deep into a post-New Deal economy, and the low-wage work, wage theft, unpaid overtime and job insecurity—in the technical parlance of economists, the shit jobs—that abounded before the New Deal have returned in full force. Among the occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says will have the most job growth between 2010 and 2020 are cashiers (median annual wage as of 2010, $18,500; projected growth 250,000 new jobs), childcare workers ($19,300; 262,000 new jobs), home health and personal care aides (roughly $20,000; 1.3 million new jobs), food prep and fast-food workers ($17,950; 398,000 new jobs), and retail sales workers ($20,670; 707,000 new jobs). According to a paper from the National Employment Law Project [April 2012 Issue Brief, “Slower Real Growth, Declining Real Wages Undermine Recovery], 30 percent of this decade’s job openings will have a median wage around $20,000. According to a report issued earlier this month by the Food Chain Workers Alliance, a survey of food workers—from farm workers to processing workers to kitchen workers to servers—found that just 13.5 percent made a wage that was at least 150 percent of the regional poverty threshold. And need I point out that the nation’s largest private-sector employer, with more than 1.4 million workers (excuse me, associates) based in the United States, is WalMart? And that many thousands more work in Wal-Mart’s low-wage supply chain, among them port truckers who struggle to break even and warehouse workers who make just over the minimum wage?
In short, shit jobs abound. The shit jobs that are often the only jobs that workers who’ve lost decent-paying jobs as American manufacturing can find. And for all we hear about American wages having to come down as a result of globalization and low-wage foreign competition, none of the jobs I’ve mentioned are subject to foreign competition. Alan Blinder, the Princeton economist who was deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve during Bill Clinton’s presidency, has set the number of American jobs that can be offshored at a little over 40 million – meaning, roughly twice that number of jobs cannot. That’s one thing that happens when you shift from a manufacturing-dominated economy to a service-dominated one.
Have there been efforts to unionize these jobs? Many—and yet the vast majority have failed due to the dysfunctionality of the laws that nominally protect workers’ right to organize. Port truckers, for instance, lost their employee status and were rendered “independent contractors” by the deregulation of the trucking industry. Absent an employer of record, they barely get by. Wal-Mart has many thousands of warehouse workers who take the products off those trucks, sort and stack them on pallets bound for WalMarts all over the nation, but WalMart has arranged a system by which those workers are employed by a bewildering array of temporary employment agencies. Unions have been trying to organize the port truckers and the warehouse workers for years – in the case of the truckers, for decades – but the byzantine employment arrangements have proved too steep a climb.
When unions representing home care and nursing home workerss, hotel and restaurant employees, supermarket employees, truckers and laborers left the AFL-CIO in 2005 to found a consortium of their own, Change To Win, they had one thing that united them: they all represented and sought to represent workers in industries that were not part of a globalized labor market. To date, however, none of Change To Win’s organizing campaigns has succeeded, because the odds against unionization remain so steep. The organization’s paramount objective remains WalMart – a company so anti-union that when butchers at one store in Texas voted to unionize, WalMart shuttered its fresh meat department not only at that store but at every store in Texas and the five surrounding states.
Tens of millions of Americans work in WalMart’s America—in a low-wage labor market not subject to foreign competition. That’s a primary reason why economic inequality has soared in recent decades, why intergenerational economic mobility has fallen behind the levels in presumably sclerotic Europe, why wages are at their lowest share of both GDP and corporate revenues since the end of World War II. The shift in income from wages to profits is above all the result of the weakening of unions. Anyone who says that America needed unions once but doesn’t today is willfully blind. Those who defend the right of private-sector workers to unionize—in theory, anyway—should open their eyes and look around them. There’s a nation out there in desperate need of unionization.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Supreme Court Uses Narrow Case to Go After Unions
When the Republican majority on the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the presidency in Bush v Gore, it was obvious that the court is as partisan as congress. The equally bad Citizen's United case in 2010 was just more of the Republican court majority tilting the partisan scales in their favor. Now comes Knox v SEIU, where the court opined on a point that wasn't even argued in the case, Right to Work!
The Court’s Scott Walker Moment
GARRETT EPPS JUNE 21, 2012
Five justices tell public-employee unions they “tolerate” them—for now.
On First Amendment Thursday, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court delivered an unsubtle warning to public employee unions: You are living on borrowed time.
In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, the five—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito—reached out to decide a question that was not argued or briefed; their opinion all but begs right-wing advocacy groups and public employers to use its emerging First-Amendment jurisprudence to take down public-employee unions and in essence find a Southern-style “right to work” law in the Constitution. In the days when right-wingers favored judicial restraint, this might have been called “judicial activism.”
It is the Court’s Scott Walker moment.
The case concerned the rules by which unions can assess “agency fees” payable by non-members who benefit from the unions’ collective bargaining efforts. Though public employees can’t be forced to join unions, it is legal for governments to contract with unions like SEIU to provide representation to all employees in a bargaining unit. Under the contract, non-members can be charged an “agency fee” that reimburses the union for the costs of negotiating contracts and handling grievances.
However, under prior precedent, non-members can’t be forced to pay for various political activities by the union. This, the Court has held, violates the First Amendment rule against “compelled speech.” So every year, the union takes the applicable dues payment for members, reduces it by the percentage of last year’s dues that went for political activities, and charges non-members the remaining percentage of dues. The rationale for the remaining charge is that non-members would otherwise benefit from the union’s efforts as “free riders.”
In 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a special election to approve two anti-union ballot provisions. SEIU responded to this unexpected crisis by temporarily raising dues to amass a “Political Fight-Back Fund.” Unlike with ordinary dues payments, non-members weren’t given a chance to opt out of the fund.
In an opinion by Alito, the Court held that emergency funds were not exempt from the general rule requiring objectors to opt out. That’s not a huge surprise. What was a surprise—and an ominous one—is the majority’s second holding: even allowing non-members to opt out of such an assessment would not cure the First Amendment violation. Instead, it said, the Constitution requires the union to collect the assessment only from members who specifically opt in, giving notice that they want their checks reduced to pay for the special political campaign.
That new rule would impose substantial administrative costs on the union, and reduce the amount it collects. But more significantly, the majority’s rationale would seem to apply to all agency payments by non-members. And indeed, language in the opinion suggests that the majority thinks the whole idea of agency fees is a violation of the First Amendment. “[C] compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights,’” the Court said, quoting an earlier case. “Our cases to date have tolerated this ‘impingement,’ and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”
If I were the National Right to Work Legal Defense Committee, these words might sound to me very much like, “Bring us a case and we will void the agency shop altogether.” That’s particularly true given language later in the opinion calling the entire “free rider” rationale into question. If workers can’t be required to join a union or to pay agency fees, then the so-called “right to work” zone will cover 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Though the result was 7-2, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined only by Justice Ginsburg, concurred only in the result. The union should have offered an opt-out, she said. However, “I cannot agree with the majority’s decision address unnecessarily significant constitutional issues well outside the scope of the questions presented and briefing”—meaning the new constitutional “opt in only rule,” which was not argued by the parties and contradicts a long line of precedent. In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, made the same point. The “opt-in” rule “runs directly counter to precedent,” he wrote. “No party asked that we [impose the rule]. The matter has not been fully argued in this Court or in the Court below.”
Breyer noted that “each reason the Court offers in support of its ‘opt-in’ conclusion seems in logic to apply, not just to special assessments, but to ordinary yearly fee charges as well.” He accused the five conservative judges of putting a finger in the scales of the ongoing fight over public-sector unions. “[T]he opinion will play a central role in an ongoing, intense political debate.” To underline his concern, Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, while Alito, a poor winner, glowered at him like an angry headmaster five seats away.
Public employee unions have had a bad spring. In the long run, Knox may warn of a worse defeat than anything that happened in Wisconsin.
http://prospect.org/article/court’s-scott-walker-moment
The Court’s Scott Walker Moment
GARRETT EPPS JUNE 21, 2012
Five justices tell public-employee unions they “tolerate” them—for now.
On First Amendment Thursday, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court delivered an unsubtle warning to public employee unions: You are living on borrowed time.
In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, the five—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito—reached out to decide a question that was not argued or briefed; their opinion all but begs right-wing advocacy groups and public employers to use its emerging First-Amendment jurisprudence to take down public-employee unions and in essence find a Southern-style “right to work” law in the Constitution. In the days when right-wingers favored judicial restraint, this might have been called “judicial activism.”
It is the Court’s Scott Walker moment.
The case concerned the rules by which unions can assess “agency fees” payable by non-members who benefit from the unions’ collective bargaining efforts. Though public employees can’t be forced to join unions, it is legal for governments to contract with unions like SEIU to provide representation to all employees in a bargaining unit. Under the contract, non-members can be charged an “agency fee” that reimburses the union for the costs of negotiating contracts and handling grievances.
However, under prior precedent, non-members can’t be forced to pay for various political activities by the union. This, the Court has held, violates the First Amendment rule against “compelled speech.” So every year, the union takes the applicable dues payment for members, reduces it by the percentage of last year’s dues that went for political activities, and charges non-members the remaining percentage of dues. The rationale for the remaining charge is that non-members would otherwise benefit from the union’s efforts as “free riders.”
In 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a special election to approve two anti-union ballot provisions. SEIU responded to this unexpected crisis by temporarily raising dues to amass a “Political Fight-Back Fund.” Unlike with ordinary dues payments, non-members weren’t given a chance to opt out of the fund.
In an opinion by Alito, the Court held that emergency funds were not exempt from the general rule requiring objectors to opt out. That’s not a huge surprise. What was a surprise—and an ominous one—is the majority’s second holding: even allowing non-members to opt out of such an assessment would not cure the First Amendment violation. Instead, it said, the Constitution requires the union to collect the assessment only from members who specifically opt in, giving notice that they want their checks reduced to pay for the special political campaign.
That new rule would impose substantial administrative costs on the union, and reduce the amount it collects. But more significantly, the majority’s rationale would seem to apply to all agency payments by non-members. And indeed, language in the opinion suggests that the majority thinks the whole idea of agency fees is a violation of the First Amendment. “[C] compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights,’” the Court said, quoting an earlier case. “Our cases to date have tolerated this ‘impingement,’ and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”
If I were the National Right to Work Legal Defense Committee, these words might sound to me very much like, “Bring us a case and we will void the agency shop altogether.” That’s particularly true given language later in the opinion calling the entire “free rider” rationale into question. If workers can’t be required to join a union or to pay agency fees, then the so-called “right to work” zone will cover 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Though the result was 7-2, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined only by Justice Ginsburg, concurred only in the result. The union should have offered an opt-out, she said. However, “I cannot agree with the majority’s decision address unnecessarily significant constitutional issues well outside the scope of the questions presented and briefing”—meaning the new constitutional “opt in only rule,” which was not argued by the parties and contradicts a long line of precedent. In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, made the same point. The “opt-in” rule “runs directly counter to precedent,” he wrote. “No party asked that we [impose the rule]. The matter has not been fully argued in this Court or in the Court below.”
Breyer noted that “each reason the Court offers in support of its ‘opt-in’ conclusion seems in logic to apply, not just to special assessments, but to ordinary yearly fee charges as well.” He accused the five conservative judges of putting a finger in the scales of the ongoing fight over public-sector unions. “[T]he opinion will play a central role in an ongoing, intense political debate.” To underline his concern, Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, while Alito, a poor winner, glowered at him like an angry headmaster five seats away.
Public employee unions have had a bad spring. In the long run, Knox may warn of a worse defeat than anything that happened in Wisconsin.
http://prospect.org/article/court’s-scott-walker-moment
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Walmart on defensive after PR officer found ‘spying’ on union workers
Really?
Stephanie Harnett, a publicist working for Mercury Communications, which has been retained by Walmart to assist in its effort to open a new store in the Chinatown area of Los Angeles, claimed to be a student journalist called “Zoe Mitchell” when she turned up at the event on 6 June.
She then spoke to and recorded an interview with an activist from Warehouse Workers United, a group campaigning for worker improvements in the notoriously low wage industry where casual labor and poor health conditions are all too common.
The subterfuge only became apparent on Wednesday, when Harnett turned up at a different event and this time used her real name. She was spotted by members of WWU who recognised her and were stunned to see her handing out Mercury business cards with a completely different identity.
Walmart moved to distance itself from her actions on Thursday, and Mercury said neither it nor the retail giant had “approved, authorized or directed” her actions. It said she was no longer working for the firm.
WWU officials, who are backed by the Change to Win coalition of unions, are outraged at the stunt. They say Walmart – with its gigantic spending power – has a chance to improve things.
“Last week when Walmart had the chance to talk about real issues affecting Latino workers in Southern California it instead sent ‘Zoe’, a fake reporter. A spy. Our door is open. Walmart can change this industry and create thousands of good jobs and improve the quality of life in Southern California, but first it has to come out of hiding,” the WWU said in a statement.
The press conference was to highlight a report by the National Employment Law Project which accused big box retailers, like Walmart, of driving down wages and work place safety standards in a supply chain of sub-contracted warehouse operators. The report, called Chain of Greed, singled out Walmart as a major offender. “Walmart sets the parameters for the working conditions in (warehouses)… but when things go wrong, it’s the contractors that are blamed, while Walmart skirts responsibility for its actions and accountability for its influence over those engaged in its massive supply chain,” the report stated.
For its part Mercury said that neither it nor Walmart had known about Harnett’s plans to infiltrate the press conference as “Zoe” and gather information on participants. It also said that such an act would not happen again. “The action taken by Ms Harnett was in no way approved, authorized, or directed by Walmart or Mercury. Stephanie is a junior member of our team who made an immature decision. She showed very poor judgment and Mercury takes full responsibility. We are taking the necessary disciplinary actions. This is an isolated incident that has never happened before and will not happen again,” Mercury said in a statement.
Warehouse worker Santos Castaneda, 25, one of two members of WWU who were speaking at the first press conference, is upset that he was duped by someone working indirectly for the company that he is campaigning against. “I never thought she was going to be a spy. I feel mad and disappointed,” he said.
The “journalist” approached Castenada, 25, asked him to tell his story about low wages and tough conditions in his job.
The woman reporter introduced herself to Castaneda as a University of Southern California journalism student called Zoe Mitchell. “She said she was a story teller from the heart. She was very interested in warehouse workers and the working conditions,” Castaneda said.
The pair spoke for up to half an hour and Mitchell recorded the whole interview, taking down details of Castaneda’s biography and working history. “I explained how we are fighting for our rights,” Castaneda said.
Walmart spokesman Steven Restivo told Gawker: “These actions were unacceptable, misleading and wrong. Our culture of integrity is a constant at Walmart and by not properly identifying herself, this individual’s behavior was contrary to our values and the way we do business. We insist that all our vendors conduct themselves in a way that is transparent and honest and we will reinforce that expectation to help ensure this type of activity is not repeated.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Teacher unions needed, Wages aren’t the only protection.
This is a well written letter to the Columbia Tribune editor.
BY HERB PANKO
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
As a retired Minnesota teacher and former union member, I can sympathize with the teachers in Wisconsin and other states where Republican governors are attempting to weaken or destroy collective bargaining and public unions.
First, there is a misconception that collective bargaining is just about financial compensation. It’s much more than that. Just as important to teachers are working conditions that do not inhibit effective student instruction, being treated fairly and having protection against arbitrary, petty, unwarranted teacher dismissals unrelated to an employee’s job performance. Before the days of the unions and collective bargaining, such types of unfair, arbitrary firings were common, and teachers had little legal recourse without union representation.
Another common misunderstanding is that collective bargaining and unions’ support of the teacher tenure law prevents a poorly performing teacher from being fired. That is simply not true. First of all, unfit teachers are often allowed to become tenured even though during his or her initial probationary period, when it is relatively easy to dismiss an inadequately performing teacher, there is usually ample evidence that an employee is ineffective or incompetent. The problem is administrators frequently fail to adequately monitor, evaluate and offer assistance to a failing employee, thus allowing an ineffective teacher to achieve tenure.
But contrary to popular opinion, a teacher can still be dismissed even though he or she is tenured. Again, the problem is often that of administrators who fail to do the proper evaluation, documentation and other legal, procedural steps necessary to dismiss an ineffective, incompetent or insubordinate teacher. These rules were put in place by unions through collective bargaining to ensure dismissals are fully justified and to ensure employees are treated fairly. Of course, these legal steps take some time and effort, which administrators often resist. No one, including teachers, wants to see an incompetent employee stay on the job. That makes the job of all teachers that much more difficult. But blaming teachers and unions for ineffective teachers remaining on the job misses the point.
There are broader, more serious and deeper implications at play in what is now going on in states such as Wisconsin. The attack on unions and collective bargaining strikes at the very core of what a healthy, compassionate democracy is all about. A properly functioning democracy is measured by how well it treats its elderly, its poor, its disadvantaged and its working middle class. Reducing or eliminating the ability of its workers to negotiate with their employers over working conditions and compensation is one of the signals that a democracy is in the initial stages of disintegrating.
That is why it is imperative that teachers and other associated with both public and private unions not allow such union-busting tactics by the Republican governors to succeed.
Herb Panko is a retired teacher who lives in Columbia. As a Minnesota educator, he was an active union member.
BY HERB PANKO
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
As a retired Minnesota teacher and former union member, I can sympathize with the teachers in Wisconsin and other states where Republican governors are attempting to weaken or destroy collective bargaining and public unions.
First, there is a misconception that collective bargaining is just about financial compensation. It’s much more than that. Just as important to teachers are working conditions that do not inhibit effective student instruction, being treated fairly and having protection against arbitrary, petty, unwarranted teacher dismissals unrelated to an employee’s job performance. Before the days of the unions and collective bargaining, such types of unfair, arbitrary firings were common, and teachers had little legal recourse without union representation.
Another common misunderstanding is that collective bargaining and unions’ support of the teacher tenure law prevents a poorly performing teacher from being fired. That is simply not true. First of all, unfit teachers are often allowed to become tenured even though during his or her initial probationary period, when it is relatively easy to dismiss an inadequately performing teacher, there is usually ample evidence that an employee is ineffective or incompetent. The problem is administrators frequently fail to adequately monitor, evaluate and offer assistance to a failing employee, thus allowing an ineffective teacher to achieve tenure.
But contrary to popular opinion, a teacher can still be dismissed even though he or she is tenured. Again, the problem is often that of administrators who fail to do the proper evaluation, documentation and other legal, procedural steps necessary to dismiss an ineffective, incompetent or insubordinate teacher. These rules were put in place by unions through collective bargaining to ensure dismissals are fully justified and to ensure employees are treated fairly. Of course, these legal steps take some time and effort, which administrators often resist. No one, including teachers, wants to see an incompetent employee stay on the job. That makes the job of all teachers that much more difficult. But blaming teachers and unions for ineffective teachers remaining on the job misses the point.
There are broader, more serious and deeper implications at play in what is now going on in states such as Wisconsin. The attack on unions and collective bargaining strikes at the very core of what a healthy, compassionate democracy is all about. A properly functioning democracy is measured by how well it treats its elderly, its poor, its disadvantaged and its working middle class. Reducing or eliminating the ability of its workers to negotiate with their employers over working conditions and compensation is one of the signals that a democracy is in the initial stages of disintegrating.
That is why it is imperative that teachers and other associated with both public and private unions not allow such union-busting tactics by the Republican governors to succeed.
Herb Panko is a retired teacher who lives in Columbia. As a Minnesota educator, he was an active union member.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Good Grief ALEC is even too icky for Wal-Mart!
Now that is pretty Icky!
Abandoning ALEC
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Jim Hightower
Good Grief ALEC is even too icky for Wal-Mart!
The American Legislative Exchange Council is the corporate-financed bill mill that thinks up reams of anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-democracy, and other anti-people laws favored by its corporate funders. It then works with Republican law makers in state legislatures to introduce about 1,000 of these cookie-cutter bills every year in statehouses all over the country. Until recently, ALEC largely operated clandestinely but such watchdog groups as Center for Media and Democracy, Color of Change, and Nation magazine have now outed it as the insidious force behind some of America's most-extreme, right-wing legislation.
By not only exposing the raw ugliness of the front group's agenda, but also naming its corporate backers, the fiesty watchdogs are producing a rush of brand-name, Fortune 500 firms fleeing ALEC. Let's call the roll of some that have discontinued their membership and sponsorship so far this year: Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft Foods, Intuit, McDonald's, Wendy's, Mars Candies, Blue Cross Blue Shield, YUM! Brands (including Pizza Hut), Procter & Gamble, Amazon, and Medtronic.
And, on May 30, even the far-right-wing, anti-worker,
ethically-challenged Wal-Mart empire abandoned the ALEC ship. "We feel that the divide between [ALEC's political] activities and our purpose as a business has become too wide," declared Wal-Mart's head of lobbying and PR. "To that end, we are suspending our membership."
Like the infamous Koch brothers (who continue to stay aboard the Legislative Exchange Council's sinking ship), the very name of ALEC has become a political epithet, a symbol of the corruption of America's democratic values by the plutocratic elite. To keep up with developments, go to www.ALECexposed.org.
"Wal-Mart latest to leave conservative ALEC advocacy group,"
www.reuters.com, May 31, 2012.
Abandoning ALEC
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Jim Hightower
Good Grief ALEC is even too icky for Wal-Mart!
The American Legislative Exchange Council is the corporate-financed bill mill that thinks up reams of anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-democracy, and other anti-people laws favored by its corporate funders. It then works with Republican law makers in state legislatures to introduce about 1,000 of these cookie-cutter bills every year in statehouses all over the country. Until recently, ALEC largely operated clandestinely but such watchdog groups as Center for Media and Democracy, Color of Change, and Nation magazine have now outed it as the insidious force behind some of America's most-extreme, right-wing legislation.
By not only exposing the raw ugliness of the front group's agenda, but also naming its corporate backers, the fiesty watchdogs are producing a rush of brand-name, Fortune 500 firms fleeing ALEC. Let's call the roll of some that have discontinued their membership and sponsorship so far this year: Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft Foods, Intuit, McDonald's, Wendy's, Mars Candies, Blue Cross Blue Shield, YUM! Brands (including Pizza Hut), Procter & Gamble, Amazon, and Medtronic.
And, on May 30, even the far-right-wing, anti-worker,
ethically-challenged Wal-Mart empire abandoned the ALEC ship. "We feel that the divide between [ALEC's political] activities and our purpose as a business has become too wide," declared Wal-Mart's head of lobbying and PR. "To that end, we are suspending our membership."
Like the infamous Koch brothers (who continue to stay aboard the Legislative Exchange Council's sinking ship), the very name of ALEC has become a political epithet, a symbol of the corruption of America's democratic values by the plutocratic elite. To keep up with developments, go to www.ALECexposed.org.
"Wal-Mart latest to leave conservative ALEC advocacy group,"
www.reuters.com, May 31, 2012.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
ST. LOUIS NURSES SAY YES TO UNION
Congratulations to the nurses at St. Louis University Hospital!
RNs AT SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL VOTE BY 76% TO AFFILIATE WITH NATIONAL NURSES UNITED
6/8/12
ST. LOUIS – By a landslide of 76 percent, registered nurses at Saint Louis University Hospital (SLUH) Thursday night voted to join the National Nurses Organizing Committee-Missouri (NNOC-Missouri), an affiliate of the 175,000-member National Nurses United (NNU), the largest union and professional association of RNs in the U.S.
The secret ballot election was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. The final count was 305 to 99 to affiliate with NNOC-Missouri/NNU, which will now represent the more than 600 registered nurses at SLUH.
“We are so happy that we SLUH RNs will now have a vehicle to negotiate for improved patient care, salaries, and benefits that can recruit and retain the best nurses for the best patients in St. Louis. We have no illusions about the work ahead but with unity and resolve, we look forward to a bright future,” said Lesa Dustman, an intensive care unit RN at SLUH.
Saint Louis University Hospital is part of the Tenet Healthcare system. NNU affiliates currently represent approximately 4,000 RNs in nine Tenet hospitals in Florida, Texas, and California.
NNU leaders said the SLUH election will inspire other nurses in the region.
“This is a game changer for nurses and patients throughout St. Louis and the region,” said NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro, a St. Louis native. “Wherever nurses have won a collective voice through NNU, they have been able to make a substantial difference in the delivery of safe patient care and to elevate standards for themselves and their families.”
“For the community of St. Louis and all nurses, this is just the beginning. We are on the move and we are here to stay,” DeMoro said.
“We are excited to welcome fellow RNs from Saint Louis University Hospital,” said Sherri Stoddard, RN, chair of NNOC’s national Tenet RN Bargaining Council. “We strive every day to maintain patient care standards across the board in Tenet hospitals. Informed and unified, we work together with our elected Professional Practice Committee to make this happen. When RNs come together like this, patients, nurses, and communities win.”
From coast to coast, RNs have been joining NNU and its affiliates due to a solid record of successful advocacy for strong patient safety standards, economic and workplace improvements for RNs, and NNU’s reputation for promoting legislation to benefit patients, nurses, and communities.
Since its founding two and a half years ago, NNU has organized more than 30 hospitals and 13,000 RNs in 10 states.
“National Nurses United and our affiliates around the country are successful because we speak to the needs of patients,” said Jean Ross, RN and NNU co-president. “What’s more, we see what’s happening in our communities and we won’t stand by. Our care extends beyond the bedside. And that’s bringing more RNs into the fold.”
RNs AT SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL VOTE BY 76% TO AFFILIATE WITH NATIONAL NURSES UNITED
6/8/12
ST. LOUIS – By a landslide of 76 percent, registered nurses at Saint Louis University Hospital (SLUH) Thursday night voted to join the National Nurses Organizing Committee-Missouri (NNOC-Missouri), an affiliate of the 175,000-member National Nurses United (NNU), the largest union and professional association of RNs in the U.S.
The secret ballot election was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. The final count was 305 to 99 to affiliate with NNOC-Missouri/NNU, which will now represent the more than 600 registered nurses at SLUH.
“We are so happy that we SLUH RNs will now have a vehicle to negotiate for improved patient care, salaries, and benefits that can recruit and retain the best nurses for the best patients in St. Louis. We have no illusions about the work ahead but with unity and resolve, we look forward to a bright future,” said Lesa Dustman, an intensive care unit RN at SLUH.
Saint Louis University Hospital is part of the Tenet Healthcare system. NNU affiliates currently represent approximately 4,000 RNs in nine Tenet hospitals in Florida, Texas, and California.
NNU leaders said the SLUH election will inspire other nurses in the region.
“This is a game changer for nurses and patients throughout St. Louis and the region,” said NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro, a St. Louis native. “Wherever nurses have won a collective voice through NNU, they have been able to make a substantial difference in the delivery of safe patient care and to elevate standards for themselves and their families.”
“For the community of St. Louis and all nurses, this is just the beginning. We are on the move and we are here to stay,” DeMoro said.
“We are excited to welcome fellow RNs from Saint Louis University Hospital,” said Sherri Stoddard, RN, chair of NNOC’s national Tenet RN Bargaining Council. “We strive every day to maintain patient care standards across the board in Tenet hospitals. Informed and unified, we work together with our elected Professional Practice Committee to make this happen. When RNs come together like this, patients, nurses, and communities win.”
From coast to coast, RNs have been joining NNU and its affiliates due to a solid record of successful advocacy for strong patient safety standards, economic and workplace improvements for RNs, and NNU’s reputation for promoting legislation to benefit patients, nurses, and communities.
Since its founding two and a half years ago, NNU has organized more than 30 hospitals and 13,000 RNs in 10 states.
“National Nurses United and our affiliates around the country are successful because we speak to the needs of patients,” said Jean Ross, RN and NNU co-president. “What’s more, we see what’s happening in our communities and we won’t stand by. Our care extends beyond the bedside. And that’s bringing more RNs into the fold.”
Thursday, June 7, 2012
What Labor’s Loss in Wisconsin Does—and Doesn’t—Mean
Analysis of the Wisconsin Election Results.
Working In These Times
Thursday Jun 7, 2012
Milwaukee
Mayor Tom Barrett makes his concession speech to supporters June 5,
2012 in Milwaukee, Wis. (Photo by Andy Manis/Getty Images)
There's no point mincing words: By rejecting the recall of Republican
Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin voters dealt a nasty blow to organized
labor and progressives in the state and beyond.
That was especially true since Wisconsin unions and liberals picked this particular fight, even if it was a justifiable but politically risky response to the governor taking away the rights of public workers.
Quickly, right-wing leaders and commentators—and even some liberals—declared the vote the death knell of unions, especially in the public sector, and a public legitimation of hard-line anti-union strategies. And it could turn into a PATCO moment—when Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers—if organized labor and its allies fail to launch an effective counter-attack on behalf of not only labor rights but more broadly economic justice and democracy.
But single victories rarely translate into triumphal waves. The right reads too much into their win. Few Republican governors would like to undergo the protests Walker has faced, even if they keep their office.
Yet a strong trend has emerged among both Democrats and Republicans toward attacking public employees, following the successful decades-long offensive against private sector unions. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision will keep the floodgates open to the gush of money from right-wing billionaires that gave Walker an overwhelming financial edge (perhaps eight to one).
The recall vote "was not the end of something but the beginning," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, referring to a "new model" of labor and community mobilization, a new determination "to hold politicians accountable," and an emerging movement for economic justice.
Labor and its progressive allies are hardly dead after Tuesday, but they need to take the defeat seriously. They could start by acknowledging that many unions have failed to educate and energize their own members adequately and that much of the public, including even theoretically friendly politicians, do not appreciate—or feel any benefit from—a shrinking, sometimes insular movement.
In these hostile times, unions need to pre-emptively create broad coalitions—such as Wisconsin formed in reaction to Walker—and more means of outreach to educate the public, especially the working class, about how our society fails to work for the 99 percent and why unions still play a crucial role at work and in politics.
Some implications of the recall vote are murky because the factors in the election are complex. For example, Walker kept his office by a larger margin than when he first won a year and a half ago, but Republicans lost control of the state Senate when one Democrat won in a recall contest. (That opens up a way to stop much of Walker's agenda, but the Senate will probably not meet until next year.) That slightly tempers the loss.
Also, although labor unions and many supporters saw the recall as a referendum on labor rights, Democrats and Barrett himself downplayed public workers' rights in the recall battles, with both parties emphasizing other issues. That makes the meaning of the vote less clear—in contrast with voters' strong rejection of S.B. 5's anti-labor provisions in Ohio.
Also, 60 percent of voters in exit polls said they thought a recall was appropriate only in cases of misconduct. That reluctance to recall showed up in last year's Senate campaigns and constitutes one of the main reasons Walker won.
Wisconsin voters were deeply divided on public workers' union rights and somewhat at odds with themselves. In exit polls, by 51 to 45 percent, voters expressed a favorable view of public employee unions, but by almost inverse divisions—52 to 47 percent—they approved both limiting collective bargaining and how Walker handled collective bargaining. Nationally, however, a New York Times poll in February 2011 found Americans opposed taking away collective bargaining rights by 60 to 33 percent.
Even though the anti-Walker movement lost this fight, it is still alive as a movement, including new or revitalized organizations like We Are Wisconsin and Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Jobs Now.
"The story of Wisconsin is the story of fighting back and the force of mass offensives," says SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin Vice President Bruce Colburn. "Wisconsin set a good example of that willingness to take on that fight," possibly giving other, less ideological governors than Walker pause about following his path.
But membership in public employee unions has dropped. The Wall Street Journal reports AFSCME in Wisconsin has declined from 62,818 in March 2011 to 28,745 in February 2012, though AFSCME disputes those numbers. Meanwhile, SEIU has lost some government members and is likely to lose many more in 2014 when its contract with the University of Wisconsin expires, and with it, their right to bargain a new contract. So far, few unions have re-organized their workplaces to prepare workers to act collectively even without bargaining.
The right also used Wisconsin as a test for developing its political "ground game," which some reports described as rivaling labor's own infrastructure. While some pundits see dangers that Obama could now lose Wisconsin, which he won by a large margin over John McCain in 2008, the exit polls showed Obama favored over Romney by 51 to 44 percent. The presidential race will likely be tight, but Walker's victory does not pose a great setback for Obama, except for motivating the far right and for stimulating development of field operations.
Unlike the Republicans, the national Democrats and Obama stayed relatively distant—with the president's main, pathetic role consisting of sending out a tweet at the last minute in support of Barrett. This strategy of avoiding an intensely felt but probably losing candidacy may be smart, if not particularly principled, politics on the part of Team Obama, but to the extent that it sets back labor unions, it hurts Democratic electoral prospects.
More important to the state of the union, if not the president's campaign, declining unions are implicated in rising inequality, worse health, and weakened democracy.
Do even union members realize that? Searching the beer and brat leftovers of Tuesday night for clues, the answer is yes—and no.
Union members and their households turned out only somewhat more forcefully to vote than non-union voters. According to exit polls, 17 percent of voters were union members, though in 2011 they constituted about 13 percent of the state's workforce, and they voted 71 percent for Barrett, 28 percent for Walker.
According to a Hart Research poll of union members for the AFL-CIO, 85 percent of public-sector union members voted for Barrett, 15 percent for Walker. Private-sector union members voted 69 to 31 for Barrett (for a combined union member tally of 75 to 25 percent split). Voters from households with a union member—32 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls—cast 62 percent of their ballots for Barrett, compared to 39 percent for the Democrat from households with no union member.
Considering Walker's extreme actions against public union members and the protests against him, the private-sector unionist vote does not show unusually strong support for the recall. But Hart found that 79 percent of private-sector union members believe in public workers' right to bargain collectively—not too bad but not overwhelming solidarity.
Measured against usual performance, public workers were, not surprisingly, strongly for the recall. While some association with a union seemed to have significantly influenced voters to oppose Walker, a large bloc of union members was not moved by Walker's attack on unions—including people who object to unions, hold a right-wing worldview, vote on specific social issues or otherwise part company with their union. The weak support for the anti-Walker campaign from other, non-union workers is more of a problem, since they form a bigger share of the voters.
Overall, Barrett won a few distinct groups of voters—the poor, the very educated, the young, minorities, single women (and union members). He lost the wealthy. He also lost the non-college educated (56 to 43 percent), and he split whites making $50,000 or less evenly. But despite attempts to work with these voters, such as the AFL-CIO's Working America organization, many of these non-union but working-class voters simply don't identify with the labor movement.
Looking ahead, both sides are geared up for the November elections, and voters are energized, says Rob Zerban, challenger to Republican budget chair Paul Ryan in the southeast corner of the state.
Though encouraged by the state Senate recall victory within the Congressional district where he is running, Zerban says, "The races are different. But anytime there is more participation by Democrats, it's a good sign." He does not believe Walker's victory will hurt his campaign.
The recall fallout can—and must—be contained. But it will take more serious member education, mobilization and the creation of meaningful coalitions that reach out more broadly than has happened before.
That was especially true since Wisconsin unions and liberals picked this particular fight, even if it was a justifiable but politically risky response to the governor taking away the rights of public workers.
Quickly, right-wing leaders and commentators—and even some liberals—declared the vote the death knell of unions, especially in the public sector, and a public legitimation of hard-line anti-union strategies. And it could turn into a PATCO moment—when Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers—if organized labor and its allies fail to launch an effective counter-attack on behalf of not only labor rights but more broadly economic justice and democracy.
But single victories rarely translate into triumphal waves. The right reads too much into their win. Few Republican governors would like to undergo the protests Walker has faced, even if they keep their office.
Yet a strong trend has emerged among both Democrats and Republicans toward attacking public employees, following the successful decades-long offensive against private sector unions. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision will keep the floodgates open to the gush of money from right-wing billionaires that gave Walker an overwhelming financial edge (perhaps eight to one).
The recall vote "was not the end of something but the beginning," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, referring to a "new model" of labor and community mobilization, a new determination "to hold politicians accountable," and an emerging movement for economic justice.
Labor and its progressive allies are hardly dead after Tuesday, but they need to take the defeat seriously. They could start by acknowledging that many unions have failed to educate and energize their own members adequately and that much of the public, including even theoretically friendly politicians, do not appreciate—or feel any benefit from—a shrinking, sometimes insular movement.
In these hostile times, unions need to pre-emptively create broad coalitions—such as Wisconsin formed in reaction to Walker—and more means of outreach to educate the public, especially the working class, about how our society fails to work for the 99 percent and why unions still play a crucial role at work and in politics.
Some implications of the recall vote are murky because the factors in the election are complex. For example, Walker kept his office by a larger margin than when he first won a year and a half ago, but Republicans lost control of the state Senate when one Democrat won in a recall contest. (That opens up a way to stop much of Walker's agenda, but the Senate will probably not meet until next year.) That slightly tempers the loss.
Also, although labor unions and many supporters saw the recall as a referendum on labor rights, Democrats and Barrett himself downplayed public workers' rights in the recall battles, with both parties emphasizing other issues. That makes the meaning of the vote less clear—in contrast with voters' strong rejection of S.B. 5's anti-labor provisions in Ohio.
Also, 60 percent of voters in exit polls said they thought a recall was appropriate only in cases of misconduct. That reluctance to recall showed up in last year's Senate campaigns and constitutes one of the main reasons Walker won.
Wisconsin voters were deeply divided on public workers' union rights and somewhat at odds with themselves. In exit polls, by 51 to 45 percent, voters expressed a favorable view of public employee unions, but by almost inverse divisions—52 to 47 percent—they approved both limiting collective bargaining and how Walker handled collective bargaining. Nationally, however, a New York Times poll in February 2011 found Americans opposed taking away collective bargaining rights by 60 to 33 percent.
Even though the anti-Walker movement lost this fight, it is still alive as a movement, including new or revitalized organizations like We Are Wisconsin and Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Jobs Now.
"The story of Wisconsin is the story of fighting back and the force of mass offensives," says SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin Vice President Bruce Colburn. "Wisconsin set a good example of that willingness to take on that fight," possibly giving other, less ideological governors than Walker pause about following his path.
But membership in public employee unions has dropped. The Wall Street Journal reports AFSCME in Wisconsin has declined from 62,818 in March 2011 to 28,745 in February 2012, though AFSCME disputes those numbers. Meanwhile, SEIU has lost some government members and is likely to lose many more in 2014 when its contract with the University of Wisconsin expires, and with it, their right to bargain a new contract. So far, few unions have re-organized their workplaces to prepare workers to act collectively even without bargaining.
The right also used Wisconsin as a test for developing its political "ground game," which some reports described as rivaling labor's own infrastructure. While some pundits see dangers that Obama could now lose Wisconsin, which he won by a large margin over John McCain in 2008, the exit polls showed Obama favored over Romney by 51 to 44 percent. The presidential race will likely be tight, but Walker's victory does not pose a great setback for Obama, except for motivating the far right and for stimulating development of field operations.
Unlike the Republicans, the national Democrats and Obama stayed relatively distant—with the president's main, pathetic role consisting of sending out a tweet at the last minute in support of Barrett. This strategy of avoiding an intensely felt but probably losing candidacy may be smart, if not particularly principled, politics on the part of Team Obama, but to the extent that it sets back labor unions, it hurts Democratic electoral prospects.
More important to the state of the union, if not the president's campaign, declining unions are implicated in rising inequality, worse health, and weakened democracy.
Do even union members realize that? Searching the beer and brat leftovers of Tuesday night for clues, the answer is yes—and no.
Union members and their households turned out only somewhat more forcefully to vote than non-union voters. According to exit polls, 17 percent of voters were union members, though in 2011 they constituted about 13 percent of the state's workforce, and they voted 71 percent for Barrett, 28 percent for Walker.
According to a Hart Research poll of union members for the AFL-CIO, 85 percent of public-sector union members voted for Barrett, 15 percent for Walker. Private-sector union members voted 69 to 31 for Barrett (for a combined union member tally of 75 to 25 percent split). Voters from households with a union member—32 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls—cast 62 percent of their ballots for Barrett, compared to 39 percent for the Democrat from households with no union member.
Considering Walker's extreme actions against public union members and the protests against him, the private-sector unionist vote does not show unusually strong support for the recall. But Hart found that 79 percent of private-sector union members believe in public workers' right to bargain collectively—not too bad but not overwhelming solidarity.
Measured against usual performance, public workers were, not surprisingly, strongly for the recall. While some association with a union seemed to have significantly influenced voters to oppose Walker, a large bloc of union members was not moved by Walker's attack on unions—including people who object to unions, hold a right-wing worldview, vote on specific social issues or otherwise part company with their union. The weak support for the anti-Walker campaign from other, non-union workers is more of a problem, since they form a bigger share of the voters.
Overall, Barrett won a few distinct groups of voters—the poor, the very educated, the young, minorities, single women (and union members). He lost the wealthy. He also lost the non-college educated (56 to 43 percent), and he split whites making $50,000 or less evenly. But despite attempts to work with these voters, such as the AFL-CIO's Working America organization, many of these non-union but working-class voters simply don't identify with the labor movement.
Looking ahead, both sides are geared up for the November elections, and voters are energized, says Rob Zerban, challenger to Republican budget chair Paul Ryan in the southeast corner of the state.
Though encouraged by the state Senate recall victory within the Congressional district where he is running, Zerban says, "The races are different. But anytime there is more participation by Democrats, it's a good sign." He does not believe Walker's victory will hurt his campaign.
The recall fallout can—and must—be contained. But it will take more serious member education, mobilization and the creation of meaningful coalitions that reach out more broadly than has happened before.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
ALEC Exposed in Missouri
Sean Soendker Nicholson of Progress Missouri has the goods on how
ALEC moves the anti-union corporate agenda in Missouri. This interview
is about 9 and 1/2 minutes long:
http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2012/06/evils-of-alec-exposed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FASRIt+%28The+Turner+Report%29
http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2012/06/evils-of-alec-exposed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FASRIt+%28The+Turner+Report%29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)