The headline above is from an article in the Columbia Tribune, published on May 6, 2013. Read it here: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/mu-health-changes-concern-union-workers/article_07a240da-b678-11e2-9e5a-10604b9f6eda.html
MU Health Care administrators are running a little pilot program. They say they want to consolidate five positions into two: unit clerk and nurse technician would become one position, while unit attendant, hospitality and patient care transporter would become another position. The majority of the positions are in the union now, but the university wants both newly created jobs to be non-union. They claim the proposed change is all about "...providing quality patient care" and "flexibility." It sounds more like an attempt to save money by cutting the number of workers doing the same amount of work. And to reduce the workers ability to negotiate for fair wages and benefits by forcing them out of the union.
Mary Jenkins, the MU public relations manager seems to confirm their real intent when she refuses to say how many of the positions will be filled. If they don't plan to cut positions, why not just say so? Then she says, "...employees who "opt out of consideration" or who are not selected for one of the new positions will get help from the human resources department in finding another job in the health system."
I have an idea. In the interest of quality patient care and flexibility, MU Health Care should consolidate jobs in their PR department. The employees there can all reapply for the new positions, which will require two to three times more work for the same pay. If Ms. Jenkins is not selected for one if the new positions, she will get assistance from the HR department in finding another job in the health system. Maybe she can get a job as a unit attendant/hospitality/patient care transporter.
The people who work with the patients every day know more about providing quality patient care than any PR manager or hospital administrator. If hospital administrators would ask the workers how they could improve patient care, I think they would get an earful. It would be worth a try if patient care is really the priority.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Reading These Mysteries Won’t Hurt a Bit
Summer is the time for some fun light reading, right? We suggest you read a book authored by union shop steward Timothy Sheard. No kidding. Sheard draws from his work as a hospital nurse and a union activist (Local 1199) in a big city hospital. Lead character Lenny Moss was inspired by a custodian who served as a 1199 steward at the hospital where Sheard worked.
Sheard’s books are different from other mysteries. Rather than the typical Sherlock Holmes type of hero, Moss and his union brothers and sisters work as a collective group to discover the identity of the murderer. They also solve work place issues together. In one book, when management refuses to give workers time off to attend the funeral of a beloved co-worker, the staff marches on the Human Resource Director’s office and forces him to grant the time.
It is unique enough to find a series of novels that feature a community of workers using collective action and coordinated sleuthing to solve mysteries and keep the bosses honest. The fact that the intelligent and street wise leader of this unlikely team of detectives is a “lowly” custodian makes it more fun. Moss is disrespected and often just invisible to the doctors and managers, a fact he often turns to his advantage.
If you have a little time to relax and want to read well written mysteries by an pro-union author who understands unions and work place issues, check it out at http://www.timsheard.com/index.html.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Progressive Populist
May 15, 2013
http://www.populist.com/16.09.oleary.html
Wayne O'Leary
Once a key component of the Democratic Party coalition cobbled together by Roosevelt and the New Dealers in the 1930s, unionized labor now appears to scarcely matter. That a Democratic president can recite his agenda going forward without even acknowledging the existence of labor, which after all provided the essential foot soldiers and much of the funding for his two national campaigns, is extraordinary to say the least. Even more remarkable is that the union movement has been barely alluded to during the first four years of the Obama administration.
The orphaned status of organized labor within the Democratic Party — it’s been figuratively placed in a basket and left on the doorstep for someone to claim — is not surprising in one sense. Few Americans belong to unions anymore, especially in the private sector; the latest grim figure is 11.8% of the overall workforce, a far cry from the 35% of the mid-1950s.
Yet, labor’s symbolic influence and hold on the popular imagination remain compelling; it has strength beyond its numbers. Evidence of this emerged last year in the widespread support for unionized public workers in their struggle to preserve collective-bargaining rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. The dramatic success of that struggle in Ohio (61% majority support for the union position in referendum) was no doubt due, in part, to what Lincoln called “the mystic chords of memory” — the dim remembrance of the labor wars and sacrifices of previous generations. Something about disempowering unions just doesn’t sit right, even with those who don’t belong to one.
Mystical chords aside, there’s probably a more practical reason why the public, notwithstanding its ambivalence toward unions, is reluctant to see labor rights disappear. We’re living in a time when workers are not realizing the fruits of their labor, while corporate managements are reserving more and more of capitalism’s economic rewards for themselves and the ownership class they represent.
Between 1973 and 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), American productivity rose by 83%, while real wages in this country went up just 5%. More recently, BCA Research finds that since the start of the recovery from the Great Recession in 2009, the total rise in company profits in the US has outpaced the rise in wages by a factor of three; that’s the first time profits have risen faster than wages during a recovery in 50 years.
Based on President Obama’s State of the Union address, the White House is well aware of this discrepancy. Just a few lines into his speech, the president said this: “We gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not been rewarded .... Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have hardly budged.” Inexplicably, he then went on to focus almost entirely on a host of unrelated topics, with special emphasis on deficit and debt reduction.
Except for a pro forma presidential call to raise the federal minimum wage, the entire question of wages and incomes was relegated to the old, reliable establishment shibboleth of “education and training” as the route to upward mobility and higher living standards. In fact, America is chock full of well-schooled individuals whose work in the classroom has availed them little, because lack of an educated, trained workforce is not the fundamental problem; rather, it’s an outright unwillingness on the part of corporate America to hire people domestically, and provide decent wages and benefits. Short of a command-and-control economy, this unwillingness can be effectively combated only through the countervailing force of a regenerated labor movement able to demand a more equitable division of capitalism’s bounty.
Incumbent Democratic officeholders are reluctant to accept this fact, perhaps because they don’t want to face unpleasant realities. All-out support for labor unions would be an uncomfortable admission that the system is unjust; it would encourage political upheaval, if not class conflict, and antagonize powerful economic forces. Besides, if labor were all that popular or necessary, it wouldn’t be struggling to organize, would it?
Actually, the labor movement in America has struggled throughout its long history, facing crippling legal sanctions, organized and often violent employer resistance, and a hostile, business-dominated political culture dedicated to defending propertied interests. The great exception to this pattern was the immensely successful organizing effort of the 1930s, which finally allowed unions to gain a foothold and led, ultimately, to the postwar economic golden age (1945-75) of broad-based shared prosperity that created the middle class.
The labor upsurge of the 1930s could not have happened without the active support of a sympathetic federal government, which saw unionization as a key element in finding a way out of the Great Depression by getting spending power into the hands of average workers through higher negotiated wages. Starting with Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933 and culminating with the National Labor Relations (or Wagner) Act of 1935, labor’s guaranteed right to organize and collectively bargain was written into law. Together, these New Deal enactments spurred a 50% increase in union membership between 1933 and 1936. By the end of the decade, previously depressed union rolls had tripled to cover over a quarter of all workers.
Three-quarters of a century later, sophisticated corporate managements have learned how to undercut and circumvent existing antiquated labor law and make unionization virtually impossible once more. A basic legislative updating through such proposals as the Employee Free Choice Act with its card-check provision for union recognition, which was only tepidly advanced by Democrats in 2009, is long overdue. A full-throated liberal defense of labor, lately portrayed by its enemies as nothing more than a narrow special interest, also wouldn’t hurt.
Taken for granted doesn’t begin to adequately describe labor’s disrespected position within Democratic circles. Surely, an administration and a party that took care of Wall Street can do better by its friends. It’s both good politics and good economics.
Wayne O’Leary is a writer in Orono, Maine, specializing in political economy. He is the author of two prizewinning books.
May 15, 2013
http://www.populist.com/16.09.oleary.html
Wayne O'Leary
Labor’s Orphans in the Storm
Something was strangely missing from President Obama’s generally progressive and inspirational inaugural address of last January, as well as his State of the Union message a few weeks later. Amidst the extensive presidential litany of issues, proposals, and groups warranting attention, there was nothing about organized labor — not one word.Once a key component of the Democratic Party coalition cobbled together by Roosevelt and the New Dealers in the 1930s, unionized labor now appears to scarcely matter. That a Democratic president can recite his agenda going forward without even acknowledging the existence of labor, which after all provided the essential foot soldiers and much of the funding for his two national campaigns, is extraordinary to say the least. Even more remarkable is that the union movement has been barely alluded to during the first four years of the Obama administration.
The orphaned status of organized labor within the Democratic Party — it’s been figuratively placed in a basket and left on the doorstep for someone to claim — is not surprising in one sense. Few Americans belong to unions anymore, especially in the private sector; the latest grim figure is 11.8% of the overall workforce, a far cry from the 35% of the mid-1950s.
Yet, labor’s symbolic influence and hold on the popular imagination remain compelling; it has strength beyond its numbers. Evidence of this emerged last year in the widespread support for unionized public workers in their struggle to preserve collective-bargaining rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. The dramatic success of that struggle in Ohio (61% majority support for the union position in referendum) was no doubt due, in part, to what Lincoln called “the mystic chords of memory” — the dim remembrance of the labor wars and sacrifices of previous generations. Something about disempowering unions just doesn’t sit right, even with those who don’t belong to one.
Mystical chords aside, there’s probably a more practical reason why the public, notwithstanding its ambivalence toward unions, is reluctant to see labor rights disappear. We’re living in a time when workers are not realizing the fruits of their labor, while corporate managements are reserving more and more of capitalism’s economic rewards for themselves and the ownership class they represent.
Between 1973 and 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), American productivity rose by 83%, while real wages in this country went up just 5%. More recently, BCA Research finds that since the start of the recovery from the Great Recession in 2009, the total rise in company profits in the US has outpaced the rise in wages by a factor of three; that’s the first time profits have risen faster than wages during a recovery in 50 years.
Based on President Obama’s State of the Union address, the White House is well aware of this discrepancy. Just a few lines into his speech, the president said this: “We gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not been rewarded .... Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have hardly budged.” Inexplicably, he then went on to focus almost entirely on a host of unrelated topics, with special emphasis on deficit and debt reduction.
Except for a pro forma presidential call to raise the federal minimum wage, the entire question of wages and incomes was relegated to the old, reliable establishment shibboleth of “education and training” as the route to upward mobility and higher living standards. In fact, America is chock full of well-schooled individuals whose work in the classroom has availed them little, because lack of an educated, trained workforce is not the fundamental problem; rather, it’s an outright unwillingness on the part of corporate America to hire people domestically, and provide decent wages and benefits. Short of a command-and-control economy, this unwillingness can be effectively combated only through the countervailing force of a regenerated labor movement able to demand a more equitable division of capitalism’s bounty.
Incumbent Democratic officeholders are reluctant to accept this fact, perhaps because they don’t want to face unpleasant realities. All-out support for labor unions would be an uncomfortable admission that the system is unjust; it would encourage political upheaval, if not class conflict, and antagonize powerful economic forces. Besides, if labor were all that popular or necessary, it wouldn’t be struggling to organize, would it?
Actually, the labor movement in America has struggled throughout its long history, facing crippling legal sanctions, organized and often violent employer resistance, and a hostile, business-dominated political culture dedicated to defending propertied interests. The great exception to this pattern was the immensely successful organizing effort of the 1930s, which finally allowed unions to gain a foothold and led, ultimately, to the postwar economic golden age (1945-75) of broad-based shared prosperity that created the middle class.
The labor upsurge of the 1930s could not have happened without the active support of a sympathetic federal government, which saw unionization as a key element in finding a way out of the Great Depression by getting spending power into the hands of average workers through higher negotiated wages. Starting with Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933 and culminating with the National Labor Relations (or Wagner) Act of 1935, labor’s guaranteed right to organize and collectively bargain was written into law. Together, these New Deal enactments spurred a 50% increase in union membership between 1933 and 1936. By the end of the decade, previously depressed union rolls had tripled to cover over a quarter of all workers.
Three-quarters of a century later, sophisticated corporate managements have learned how to undercut and circumvent existing antiquated labor law and make unionization virtually impossible once more. A basic legislative updating through such proposals as the Employee Free Choice Act with its card-check provision for union recognition, which was only tepidly advanced by Democrats in 2009, is long overdue. A full-throated liberal defense of labor, lately portrayed by its enemies as nothing more than a narrow special interest, also wouldn’t hurt.
Taken for granted doesn’t begin to adequately describe labor’s disrespected position within Democratic circles. Surely, an administration and a party that took care of Wall Street can do better by its friends. It’s both good politics and good economics.
Wayne O’Leary is a writer in Orono, Maine, specializing in political economy. He is the author of two prizewinning books.
From The Progressive Populist, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Tell Jimmy John’s that public shaming is unacceptable in any workplace
The Can't Survive on $7.35 campaign in St. Louis is keeping the pressure on. This is part of the answer to the question, "How can workers organize unions in the 21st century?"
“Freaky fast, and polite.”
That’s what Jimmy John’s says in their commercials, but the appalling way they act is far from it. And I need your help to make it right.
Here’s what happened: One day during the busy lunch rush, I made 3 out of about 100 sandwiches wrong, and my co-worker took 13 seconds to get a drive through order out – 3 more seconds than the 10 we’re expected to meet.
That's when Griff Pancake, our manager, humiliated us in front of our co-workers. He made us stand up in front of everyone holding signs that said “I made 3 wrong sandwiches today,” and “I was more than 13 seconds in drive thru,” while he took pictures.
Griff was relocated to a different store after this story broke and we went on strike last week. But that’s not enough. Tell Jimmy John’s to reprimand him and tell all of their managers that this type of behavior is unacceptable - http://stlouis735.org/jimmy-johns/?utm_source=MOJWJ-JJ&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=STL735.
It's bad enough that Jimmy John’s doesn't pay us enough to cover rent or health insurance, but this kind of mistreatment has no place in any work environment. Our fight, St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35, is about more than just being paid a living wage, it’s also about being able to form a union without retaliation so we can get the respect and dignity that all people – not just workers – deserve. When we’re paid poverty wages it allows our managers and their corporate bosses to undervalue us, and it lets horrible things like public shaming happen.
It won’t be easy to change things, but we've already started. People who work hard like me for minimum wage or barely more are standing up and saying ENOUGH. Just like we need to pay workers a living wage, we need to get rid of abusive managers like Griff Pancake who make our workplaces even worse. Help us send that message to Jimmy John’s right now.
We can, and we must, do better for the folks who work in fast food here in St. Louis. I’m glad you’re standing with me and hope you’ll help us keep the momentum going today.
Thanks,
Rasheen Aldridge
St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35
“Freaky fast, and polite.”
That’s what Jimmy John’s says in their commercials, but the appalling way they act is far from it. And I need your help to make it right.
Here’s what happened: One day during the busy lunch rush, I made 3 out of about 100 sandwiches wrong, and my co-worker took 13 seconds to get a drive through order out – 3 more seconds than the 10 we’re expected to meet.
That's when Griff Pancake, our manager, humiliated us in front of our co-workers. He made us stand up in front of everyone holding signs that said “I made 3 wrong sandwiches today,” and “I was more than 13 seconds in drive thru,” while he took pictures.
Griff was relocated to a different store after this story broke and we went on strike last week. But that’s not enough. Tell Jimmy John’s to reprimand him and tell all of their managers that this type of behavior is unacceptable - http://stlouis735.org/jimmy-johns/?utm_source=MOJWJ-JJ&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=STL735.
It's bad enough that Jimmy John’s doesn't pay us enough to cover rent or health insurance, but this kind of mistreatment has no place in any work environment. Our fight, St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35, is about more than just being paid a living wage, it’s also about being able to form a union without retaliation so we can get the respect and dignity that all people – not just workers – deserve. When we’re paid poverty wages it allows our managers and their corporate bosses to undervalue us, and it lets horrible things like public shaming happen.
It won’t be easy to change things, but we've already started. People who work hard like me for minimum wage or barely more are standing up and saying ENOUGH. Just like we need to pay workers a living wage, we need to get rid of abusive managers like Griff Pancake who make our workplaces even worse. Help us send that message to Jimmy John’s right now.
We can, and we must, do better for the folks who work in fast food here in St. Louis. I’m glad you’re standing with me and hope you’ll help us keep the momentum going today.
Thanks,
Rasheen Aldridge
St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Winners and losers from the 2013 session of the Missouri General Assembly
Time to get ready for next year...
May 18
BY JASON HANCOCK
The Kansas City Star’s Jefferson City correspondent
WINNERS
Organized labor
Sometimes not losing is as good as winning. Organized labor came into the 2013 session with a target on its back. Republicans had supermajorities in both legislative chambers and an agenda that included numerous bills aimed squarely at one of their biggest political rivals. The GOP was for the first time able to win passage of a bill making it more difficult for public-employee unions to collect dues. But because several Republicans bucked their party, the bill didn’t garner enough support to override a likely veto from Gov. Jay Nixon. Senate Democrats also managed to water down a Republican attempt to change the way the mandatory minimum wage is calculated for public construction projects. More importantly for the labor movement, the GOP largely abandoned the bill that unions most despised — a ban on unions requiring workers to pay dues, better known as “right to work.”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/18/4243292/winners-and-losers-from-the-2013.html#storylink=cpy
May 18
BY JASON HANCOCK
The Kansas City Star’s Jefferson City correspondent
WINNERS
Organized labor
Sometimes not losing is as good as winning. Organized labor came into the 2013 session with a target on its back. Republicans had supermajorities in both legislative chambers and an agenda that included numerous bills aimed squarely at one of their biggest political rivals. The GOP was for the first time able to win passage of a bill making it more difficult for public-employee unions to collect dues. But because several Republicans bucked their party, the bill didn’t garner enough support to override a likely veto from Gov. Jay Nixon. Senate Democrats also managed to water down a Republican attempt to change the way the mandatory minimum wage is calculated for public construction projects. More importantly for the labor movement, the GOP largely abandoned the bill that unions most despised — a ban on unions requiring workers to pay dues, better known as “right to work.”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/18/4243292/winners-and-losers-from-the-2013.html#storylink=cpy
Senate Standoff Threatens Labor Board Shutdown
Working In These Times
Friday May 17, 2013 5:45 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C.–A partisan political standoff in the U.S. Senate threatens to close down the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) in August, further eroding workers’ rights and weakening the
ability of unions to organize new members, according to several
Democratic Party leaders who spoke at a Senate hearing this week.
Although the stand-off has been simmering for years, it takes on special urgency now because failure by the Senate to confirm new nominees for the board would paralyze the panel in August, said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. That’s because the current NLRB chair’s term of office will expire then, leaving the board without the three-person quorum legally required to conduct any further business.
The senators met on Thursday for the first and only hearing on the president's five nominees before a committee vote next Wednesday. Obama's slate includes current NLRB Chair Mark Gaston Pearce, a Buffalo, N.Y. labor lawyer who has held the office since late 2011, and two other sitting members, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., formerly the top lawyer for the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Sharon Block, a former NLRB staff attorney and aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The fourth and fifth nominees are both Republican lawyers associated with large law firms that represent corporations in legal struggles against their own employees. They are Harry I. Johnson III, a partner in the firm Arent Fox, and Philip A. Miscimarra, of the notorious anti-union firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius.
However, the biographies of the nominees were largely ignored by the senators from both parties, who spoke instead about the partisan standoff over NLRB appointments. Harkin charged that President Barack Obama has faced “relentless filibustering of nominees” at NLRB since his election and that “[some] Republicans are just trying to shut it down.” The obstructionism, Harkin suggested, is based on an underlying Republican hostility to workers’ rights and an overt desire to see Obama fail in office.
“This is about complete obstructionism,” agreed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Failure to confirm Obama nominees at NLRB and elsewhere has nothing to do with the individuals named, she said, but “because they (Republicans) don’t like what the agencies do.” As evidence, she cited similar confirmation slowdowns at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor.
One leading Republican denied these charges at the hearing, but nevertheless said he would not vote to confirm the five NLRB nominees, who are being presented together by Harkin in a package deal. Instead, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) demanded that two sitting board members, Block and Griffin, resign their posts at once, and that Obama nominate replacements to be considered by the Senate sometime in the future.
Griffin and Block are at the center of a legal fight over Obama’s recess appointment powers. Both received recess appointments in early 2012 (that is, they assumed their position without a confirmation vote by the Senate), and have been serving under a cloud ever since. The cloud darkened early this year, when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled the recess appointments were unconstitutional. The two remain in a sort of legal limbo, continuing to sit on the NLRB while awaiting news on whether the Supreme Court will render a final ruling on the case.
Little was said about the rest of the nominees, either, except by Warren, who stated that she was willing to overlook her objections to Miscimarra, whose legal work has been largely anti-union, in the name of a bipartisan compromise that would see all five nominees confirmed.
In a conference call with news reporters earlier in the week, AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said the federation will be pushing hard for the package confirmation deal. That would restore the panel to full strength and provide the stability that the agency that has been missing for years, he said. And, like Warren, the AFL-CIO is willing to overlook its objection to the Republican nominees for the sake of breaking the deadlock, he said.
Trumka echoed Harkin’s warning that a failure by the Senate to act would mean that the NLRB will cease to function at all after August 27, when Pearce’s current term expires. The board is already hampered by the Court of Appeals decision on the recess appointments issue, he said, with lawsuits piling up to void many of the NLRB decisions signed by Griffin and Block. Failure to resolve the nominations deadlock this summer could well prevent the functioning of the board for years to come, he said.
Even if the Democrat-controlled committee approves the nominees on Wednesday, as seems likely, a Republican filibuster in the full Senate could effectively block approval.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) seemed to speak for many labor advocates when she voiced doubts that Senate Republicans had any intention of allowing the NLRB to ever resume normal operations. “I fear that some of my colleagues prefer that the board not operate at all,” she said.
Although the stand-off has been simmering for years, it takes on special urgency now because failure by the Senate to confirm new nominees for the board would paralyze the panel in August, said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. That’s because the current NLRB chair’s term of office will expire then, leaving the board without the three-person quorum legally required to conduct any further business.
The senators met on Thursday for the first and only hearing on the president's five nominees before a committee vote next Wednesday. Obama's slate includes current NLRB Chair Mark Gaston Pearce, a Buffalo, N.Y. labor lawyer who has held the office since late 2011, and two other sitting members, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., formerly the top lawyer for the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Sharon Block, a former NLRB staff attorney and aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The fourth and fifth nominees are both Republican lawyers associated with large law firms that represent corporations in legal struggles against their own employees. They are Harry I. Johnson III, a partner in the firm Arent Fox, and Philip A. Miscimarra, of the notorious anti-union firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius.
However, the biographies of the nominees were largely ignored by the senators from both parties, who spoke instead about the partisan standoff over NLRB appointments. Harkin charged that President Barack Obama has faced “relentless filibustering of nominees” at NLRB since his election and that “[some] Republicans are just trying to shut it down.” The obstructionism, Harkin suggested, is based on an underlying Republican hostility to workers’ rights and an overt desire to see Obama fail in office.
“This is about complete obstructionism,” agreed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Failure to confirm Obama nominees at NLRB and elsewhere has nothing to do with the individuals named, she said, but “because they (Republicans) don’t like what the agencies do.” As evidence, she cited similar confirmation slowdowns at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor.
One leading Republican denied these charges at the hearing, but nevertheless said he would not vote to confirm the five NLRB nominees, who are being presented together by Harkin in a package deal. Instead, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) demanded that two sitting board members, Block and Griffin, resign their posts at once, and that Obama nominate replacements to be considered by the Senate sometime in the future.
Griffin and Block are at the center of a legal fight over Obama’s recess appointment powers. Both received recess appointments in early 2012 (that is, they assumed their position without a confirmation vote by the Senate), and have been serving under a cloud ever since. The cloud darkened early this year, when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled the recess appointments were unconstitutional. The two remain in a sort of legal limbo, continuing to sit on the NLRB while awaiting news on whether the Supreme Court will render a final ruling on the case.
Little was said about the rest of the nominees, either, except by Warren, who stated that she was willing to overlook her objections to Miscimarra, whose legal work has been largely anti-union, in the name of a bipartisan compromise that would see all five nominees confirmed.
In a conference call with news reporters earlier in the week, AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said the federation will be pushing hard for the package confirmation deal. That would restore the panel to full strength and provide the stability that the agency that has been missing for years, he said. And, like Warren, the AFL-CIO is willing to overlook its objection to the Republican nominees for the sake of breaking the deadlock, he said.
Trumka echoed Harkin’s warning that a failure by the Senate to act would mean that the NLRB will cease to function at all after August 27, when Pearce’s current term expires. The board is already hampered by the Court of Appeals decision on the recess appointments issue, he said, with lawsuits piling up to void many of the NLRB decisions signed by Griffin and Block. Failure to resolve the nominations deadlock this summer could well prevent the functioning of the board for years to come, he said.
Even if the Democrat-controlled committee approves the nominees on Wednesday, as seems likely, a Republican filibuster in the full Senate could effectively block approval.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) seemed to speak for many labor advocates when she voiced doubts that Senate Republicans had any intention of allowing the NLRB to ever resume normal operations. “I fear that some of my colleagues prefer that the board not operate at all,” she said.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Mo. Senate Democrats block vote on wage bill
Way to go Senate Dems!
May 14, 2013
AP
Missouri Senate Democrats blocked a vote on legislation that would change which projects fall under the state's wage requirement for public construction projects.
Under current law, "maintenance" work is not subject to the state's prevailing wage rules. But a 2011 Missouri Supreme Court decision expanded the definition of "construction," causing more projects to be subject to the wage requirement.
The bill that stalled Monday would define maintenance as routine, recurring and usual work that cannot exceed $75,000. Any work that does not meet those requirements would be subject to the prevailing wage. Democrats argue the measure would allow government entities to do construction projects without paying the wage requirement.
Prevailing wage is the rate paid for a give trade on public construction projects.
___
May 14, 2013
AP
Missouri Senate Democrats blocked a vote on legislation that would change which projects fall under the state's wage requirement for public construction projects.
Under current law, "maintenance" work is not subject to the state's prevailing wage rules. But a 2011 Missouri Supreme Court decision expanded the definition of "construction," causing more projects to be subject to the wage requirement.
The bill that stalled Monday would define maintenance as routine, recurring and usual work that cannot exceed $75,000. Any work that does not meet those requirements would be subject to the prevailing wage. Democrats argue the measure would allow government entities to do construction projects without paying the wage requirement.
Prevailing wage is the rate paid for a give trade on public construction projects.
___
Missouri legislation could weaken public labor unions
St. Louis Post Dispatch
May 14, 2013
JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Legislature is sending a bill to Gov. Jay Nixon that would make public employee unions ask their members each year if they want to continue being members.
With the legislative session entering its final days, the legislation doesn’t go as far as some lawmakers had hoped toward restricting labor groups. An effort to make Missouri the latest right-to-work state this session appears to have stalled, and the bill that did pass was amended by Democrats.
But the legislation, which earned final approval at the Capitol on Monday, would require public employee unions to get consent every year from members before deducting fees from their paychecks. Additionally, the bill also would require such unions to get annual written permission from members before using those fees for political purposes.
House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, repeatedly has said he sees the so-called “paycheck protection” legislation as a step toward right-to-work. On Monday, after the bill passed his chamber, Jones tweeted that the House had “moved one step closer to complete worker freedom.”
Supporters claim the legislation will serve as a shield to protect workers’ paychecks from being pilfered for political activities they don’t agree with and will preserve their First Amendment rights.
“If you support the First Amendment, you should support this bill,” said Rep. Rick Brattin, R- Harrisonville.
But opponents claim the move is unnecessary and will affect how unions participate in the political process. They say the real intent is a calculated hit to organized labor.
“Instead of a job creation agenda, which they should have, they have an anti-worker agenda,” said Mike Louis, secretary treasurer of Missouri AFL-CIO.
Nixon, a Democrat, could veto the bill, but he hasn’t yet made his intentions public.
The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in an 85-69 vote — well below the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
In its original form, the legislation would have blocked public employee labor unions from automatically deducting fees from employees’ paychecks — even if workers gave their permission. But after an eight-hour filibuster on the paycheck deduction legislation in March, the GOP-controlled Senate passed a version that scaled back the proposal to requiring yearly consent.
The bill includes an exemption for first responders such as firefighters and paramedics. It covers all public employee unions, including some state workers and local and regional government employees — among them the 35,000 members of the Missouri National Education Association.
House members defended the proposal on the floor Monday.
“Things change in our lives from year to year,” said Rep. Lyndall Fraker, R-Marshfield. “This is a reminder.”
The larger right-to-work legislation has been discussed for several years in Missouri without gaining much traction. But last year, Indiana and Michigan both passed right-to-work laws, igniting a new focus on the issue here. Hearings on the issue at the Capitol this year have drawn some of the largest crowds of the session.
But with the last day of the session looming Friday, lawmakers appear unlikely to pass that broader effort.
In Missouri and the 25 other states that don’t have right-to-work laws, labor groups can negotiate on behalf of all workers — even those who are not in unions. Employees who are not union members don’t have to pay dues, but they must pay fees to cover the cost of representation — essentially tying them to the groups, even if they want no affiliation.
Unions are still legal in right-to-work states, but the change is seen as a blow to their power because workers can opt out without paying fees and still receive union-negotiated benefits and protections. Labor groups call those who benefit without paying “freeloaders.”
Labor groups say the change approved in Missouri — requiring yearly consent — places an undue burden on them and will require that money be diverted to reminders, notifications and other clerical work to stay within the law.
Louis, the labor group officer, said he thinks lawmakers found a way to promote legislation that people don’t fully understand.
“I think they had to back off of (right-to-work) and go with (the paycheck bill) because what they’re calling it, ‘paycheck protection,’ doesn’t ring a bell with people,” he said.
The paycheck legislation has been backed by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group.
Dan Mehan, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber, said he sees the legislation as ensuring a fundamental right.
“You should be able to decide how your money is used,” he said. “It could have been a stronger bill, but we’re happy with the progress the issue has made.”
The paycheck deduction bill is Senate Bill 29.
Elizabeth Crisp covers Missouri politics and state government for the Post-Dispatch. Follow her on Twitter at @elizabethcrisp.
May 14, 2013
JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Legislature is sending a bill to Gov. Jay Nixon that would make public employee unions ask their members each year if they want to continue being members.
With the legislative session entering its final days, the legislation doesn’t go as far as some lawmakers had hoped toward restricting labor groups. An effort to make Missouri the latest right-to-work state this session appears to have stalled, and the bill that did pass was amended by Democrats.
But the legislation, which earned final approval at the Capitol on Monday, would require public employee unions to get consent every year from members before deducting fees from their paychecks. Additionally, the bill also would require such unions to get annual written permission from members before using those fees for political purposes.
House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, repeatedly has said he sees the so-called “paycheck protection” legislation as a step toward right-to-work. On Monday, after the bill passed his chamber, Jones tweeted that the House had “moved one step closer to complete worker freedom.”
Supporters claim the legislation will serve as a shield to protect workers’ paychecks from being pilfered for political activities they don’t agree with and will preserve their First Amendment rights.
“If you support the First Amendment, you should support this bill,” said Rep. Rick Brattin, R- Harrisonville.
But opponents claim the move is unnecessary and will affect how unions participate in the political process. They say the real intent is a calculated hit to organized labor.
“Instead of a job creation agenda, which they should have, they have an anti-worker agenda,” said Mike Louis, secretary treasurer of Missouri AFL-CIO.
Nixon, a Democrat, could veto the bill, but he hasn’t yet made his intentions public.
The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in an 85-69 vote — well below the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
In its original form, the legislation would have blocked public employee labor unions from automatically deducting fees from employees’ paychecks — even if workers gave their permission. But after an eight-hour filibuster on the paycheck deduction legislation in March, the GOP-controlled Senate passed a version that scaled back the proposal to requiring yearly consent.
The bill includes an exemption for first responders such as firefighters and paramedics. It covers all public employee unions, including some state workers and local and regional government employees — among them the 35,000 members of the Missouri National Education Association.
House members defended the proposal on the floor Monday.
“Things change in our lives from year to year,” said Rep. Lyndall Fraker, R-Marshfield. “This is a reminder.”
The larger right-to-work legislation has been discussed for several years in Missouri without gaining much traction. But last year, Indiana and Michigan both passed right-to-work laws, igniting a new focus on the issue here. Hearings on the issue at the Capitol this year have drawn some of the largest crowds of the session.
But with the last day of the session looming Friday, lawmakers appear unlikely to pass that broader effort.
In Missouri and the 25 other states that don’t have right-to-work laws, labor groups can negotiate on behalf of all workers — even those who are not in unions. Employees who are not union members don’t have to pay dues, but they must pay fees to cover the cost of representation — essentially tying them to the groups, even if they want no affiliation.
Unions are still legal in right-to-work states, but the change is seen as a blow to their power because workers can opt out without paying fees and still receive union-negotiated benefits and protections. Labor groups call those who benefit without paying “freeloaders.”
Labor groups say the change approved in Missouri — requiring yearly consent — places an undue burden on them and will require that money be diverted to reminders, notifications and other clerical work to stay within the law.
Louis, the labor group officer, said he thinks lawmakers found a way to promote legislation that people don’t fully understand.
“I think they had to back off of (right-to-work) and go with (the paycheck bill) because what they’re calling it, ‘paycheck protection,’ doesn’t ring a bell with people,” he said.
The paycheck legislation has been backed by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group.
Dan Mehan, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber, said he sees the legislation as ensuring a fundamental right.
“You should be able to decide how your money is used,” he said. “It could have been a stronger bill, but we’re happy with the progress the issue has made.”
The paycheck deduction bill is Senate Bill 29.
Elizabeth Crisp covers Missouri politics and state government for the Post-Dispatch. Follow her on Twitter at @elizabethcrisp.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Thanks to Progress Missouri -
1. PAYCHECK DECEPTION SENT TO GOV DESPITE BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION. SB29 was sent to the Governor with 85-69 in the House today, far short of the majority required to override a Nixon veto.
This AP story has the roll call vote.
http://www.pendletontimespost.com/view/story/b3fc6723ca964c1eb30ffe1e251560fc/MO-XGR--Union-Paychecks-House-Roll-Call/
Boone County Representatives
Pro-Union Vote - NO
Stephen Webber, D
John Wright, D
Caleb Rowden, R
Anti-Union Vote - Yes
Caleb Jones
Not Voting
Chris Kelly, D (missed the vote due to a mild heart attach)
Progress Missouri: Refreshing Honesty from Americans for Prosperity
http://www.progressmissouri.org/node/231/
PR Watch: Anti-Worker "Paycheck Protection" Bills Moving in Missouri
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12077/anti-worker-paycheck-protection-bills-moving-missouri
1. PAYCHECK DECEPTION SENT TO GOV DESPITE BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION. SB29 was sent to the Governor with 85-69 in the House today, far short of the majority required to override a Nixon veto.
This AP story has the roll call vote.
http://www.pendletontimespost.com/view/story/b3fc6723ca964c1eb30ffe1e251560fc/MO-XGR--Union-Paychecks-House-Roll-Call/
Boone County Representatives
Pro-Union Vote - NO
Stephen Webber, D
John Wright, D
Caleb Rowden, R
Anti-Union Vote - Yes
Caleb Jones
Not Voting
Chris Kelly, D (missed the vote due to a mild heart attach)
Progress Missouri: Refreshing Honesty from Americans for Prosperity
http://www.progressmissouri.org/node/231/
PR Watch: Anti-Worker "Paycheck Protection" Bills Moving in Missouri
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12077/anti-worker-paycheck-protection-bills-moving-missouri
Monday, May 13, 2013
HOUSE PASSES PREVAILING WAGE BILL, ON TO THE GOVERNOR
The anti-worker assault continues in the Missouri legislature. Elections have consequences, something that union members should understand much better after this session.
The House concurred in the Senate changes to HB 34 (Casey Guernsey) on May 6. The bill is now Truly Agreed To and will be submitted to the Governor for his approval or veto. The bill substantially revises the state's prevailing wage law. The bill specifies that the locality for a prevailing wage determination shall be the actual county, rather than one or more adjoining counties or other counties where workers are available. The House version allowed school districts in non-charter counties to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements. Both versions substantially revise the definitions of "construction" and "maintenance work." The intent of the prevailing wage law is to ensure that public investment supports local employment and local wage rates.
The House concurred in the Senate changes to HB 34 (Casey Guernsey) on May 6. The bill is now Truly Agreed To and will be submitted to the Governor for his approval or veto. The bill substantially revises the state's prevailing wage law. The bill specifies that the locality for a prevailing wage determination shall be the actual county, rather than one or more adjoining counties or other counties where workers are available. The House version allowed school districts in non-charter counties to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements. Both versions substantially revise the definitions of "construction" and "maintenance work." The intent of the prevailing wage law is to ensure that public investment supports local employment and local wage rates.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Hundreds protest for higher wages at fast-food restaurants
Wonder if Columbia will be next?
Protesting service industry workers march down Lindell Boulevard on Thursday afternoon, May 9, 2013, past several fast food restaurants, including Arby's, to protest the low wages for the workers. Photo by J.B. Forbes jforbes@post-dispatch.com
By Tim Logan tlogan@post-dispatch.com
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/hundreds-protest-for-higher-wages-at-fast-food-restaurants/article_2976bb7f-cb0c-5511-a528-b08baa5315b8.html
From a McDonald’s in Florissant to a Wendy’s in Rock Hill, to an Arby’s in the Central West End, a wave of protests and wildcat strikes rippled across the St. Louis region Thursday as fast-food workers took to the streets to demand better pay and working conditions.
More than 100 people walked off their jobs at about 30 restaurants, and rowdy street protests took place outside at least five in what organizers hoped would be the start of a much larger, long-term push to raise wages in the fast-food industry here.
Dubbed “St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35,” the campaign is building on similar efforts in Chicago and New York, where retail and restaurant workers have walked out to protest low wages in recent months. Here the effort is being organized by a coalition of community, labor and faith-based groups that are aiming to prod the massive fast-food industry to pay its tens of thousands of local workers more, with a goal of $15 an hour.
For reasons of supply and demand, fierce competition and the likelihood that few are eager to pay $10 for a Big Mac, wages for low-skill, high-turnover jobs in fast food are notoriously low. But for people such as Kenta Jackson of Pagedale, the desire for a bigger paycheck comes down to the ability to make a decent living.
“We can’t survive on this kind of pay,” said Jackson, who was on strike from a Church’s Chicken in the Delmar Loop. “We’re working 40 hours a week and we still need to be on government assistance.”
That message came up time and again in Thursday’s rolling strikes.
When the Wendy’s on Manchester Road in Rock Hill unlocked its doors at 10, it did so with more than 50 protesters crowding the sidewalk outside, chanting, some into megaphones, about wages and justice: “We want change, and we don’t mean pennies …”
Meanwhile, managers inside talked on cellphones, and line workers readied for lunch, peering occasionally out the drive-through window. It was 40 minutes before the first customer showed up, and a red-shirted manager stood at the corner, telling people it was OK to come in.
One of the people protesting out on the street was Jamanda Gordon, a Webster University student who normally puts in 40 hours a week at that Wendy’s, making $8.25 an hour. Half her paycheck, Gordon said, goes to pay off the loan on her car, which she needs to get from home in St. Louis to work and school. Food and other needs gobble up what’s left pretty quick.
“I’m tired of struggling,” said Gordon, who helped organize five of her co-workers to also walk out Thursday.
Managers at the Rock Hill Wendy’s declined to comment, aside from saying the store was open and that a crew of hourly workers had shown up for their shifts. A spokesman in the company’s corporate office in Ohio said, “We are proud of the opportunities that Wendy’s provides to thousands of Americans who work in our restaurants. We provide a place for people to initially enter the workforce and advance, through their initiative and abilities, into higher positions in our restaurants and beyond.”
Gordon said she’ll be back at work for her 11:30 shift Friday, proud that she took a stand and not afraid of any retaliation. Mostly, she said, she hopes the people who run Wendy’s get the message, and that leads to better treatment for workers.
“They need me just like we need them,” she said. “I consider this the foundation of something bigger.”
Martin Rafanan hopes so, too. A Lutheran minister and co-chairman of the Workers Rights Board of Missouri Jobs with Justice, he helped organize the strikes, but he was realistic about their impact.
Better wages won’t happen overnight, he acknowledged, and they won’t happen just because of short walkouts at a handful of the region’s hundreds of fast-food joints. But they just might start to happen if enough people begin to speak up, Rafanan said. Thursday’s protests were about starting that process.
“These workers will continue to build something,” he said. “This is going to go on for a long time, and we are not going away.”
Still, it’s going to take a lot of work to make even a dent. Even as 150 protesters marched up and down Lindell Boulevard, chanting in the rain from Arby’s to McDonald’s to Domino’s, past a Jack in the Box and a Qdoba, they appeared to have little impact on the lunchtime rush, just supportive honks from drivers and a few people stepping out of their offices to take video of the march on cellphones.
And by the time the protesters headed off to a lunch of their own before more marching in the afternoon, things were back to normal entirely at Arby’s, with a line at the drive-through, a full crew in the kitchen and a mechanical slicer clanking away, cutting meat for one $3.19 Roast Beef Classic after another.
Protesting service industry workers march down Lindell Boulevard on Thursday afternoon, May 9, 2013, past several fast food restaurants, including Arby's, to protest the low wages for the workers. Photo by J.B. Forbes jforbes@post-dispatch.com
By Tim Logan tlogan@post-dispatch.com
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/hundreds-protest-for-higher-wages-at-fast-food-restaurants/article_2976bb7f-cb0c-5511-a528-b08baa5315b8.html
From a McDonald’s in Florissant to a Wendy’s in Rock Hill, to an Arby’s in the Central West End, a wave of protests and wildcat strikes rippled across the St. Louis region Thursday as fast-food workers took to the streets to demand better pay and working conditions.
More than 100 people walked off their jobs at about 30 restaurants, and rowdy street protests took place outside at least five in what organizers hoped would be the start of a much larger, long-term push to raise wages in the fast-food industry here.
Dubbed “St. Louis Can’t Survive on $7.35,” the campaign is building on similar efforts in Chicago and New York, where retail and restaurant workers have walked out to protest low wages in recent months. Here the effort is being organized by a coalition of community, labor and faith-based groups that are aiming to prod the massive fast-food industry to pay its tens of thousands of local workers more, with a goal of $15 an hour.
For reasons of supply and demand, fierce competition and the likelihood that few are eager to pay $10 for a Big Mac, wages for low-skill, high-turnover jobs in fast food are notoriously low. But for people such as Kenta Jackson of Pagedale, the desire for a bigger paycheck comes down to the ability to make a decent living.
“We can’t survive on this kind of pay,” said Jackson, who was on strike from a Church’s Chicken in the Delmar Loop. “We’re working 40 hours a week and we still need to be on government assistance.”
That message came up time and again in Thursday’s rolling strikes.
When the Wendy’s on Manchester Road in Rock Hill unlocked its doors at 10, it did so with more than 50 protesters crowding the sidewalk outside, chanting, some into megaphones, about wages and justice: “We want change, and we don’t mean pennies …”
Meanwhile, managers inside talked on cellphones, and line workers readied for lunch, peering occasionally out the drive-through window. It was 40 minutes before the first customer showed up, and a red-shirted manager stood at the corner, telling people it was OK to come in.
One of the people protesting out on the street was Jamanda Gordon, a Webster University student who normally puts in 40 hours a week at that Wendy’s, making $8.25 an hour. Half her paycheck, Gordon said, goes to pay off the loan on her car, which she needs to get from home in St. Louis to work and school. Food and other needs gobble up what’s left pretty quick.
“I’m tired of struggling,” said Gordon, who helped organize five of her co-workers to also walk out Thursday.
Managers at the Rock Hill Wendy’s declined to comment, aside from saying the store was open and that a crew of hourly workers had shown up for their shifts. A spokesman in the company’s corporate office in Ohio said, “We are proud of the opportunities that Wendy’s provides to thousands of Americans who work in our restaurants. We provide a place for people to initially enter the workforce and advance, through their initiative and abilities, into higher positions in our restaurants and beyond.”
Gordon said she’ll be back at work for her 11:30 shift Friday, proud that she took a stand and not afraid of any retaliation. Mostly, she said, she hopes the people who run Wendy’s get the message, and that leads to better treatment for workers.
“They need me just like we need them,” she said. “I consider this the foundation of something bigger.”
Martin Rafanan hopes so, too. A Lutheran minister and co-chairman of the Workers Rights Board of Missouri Jobs with Justice, he helped organize the strikes, but he was realistic about their impact.
Better wages won’t happen overnight, he acknowledged, and they won’t happen just because of short walkouts at a handful of the region’s hundreds of fast-food joints. But they just might start to happen if enough people begin to speak up, Rafanan said. Thursday’s protests were about starting that process.
“These workers will continue to build something,” he said. “This is going to go on for a long time, and we are not going away.”
Still, it’s going to take a lot of work to make even a dent. Even as 150 protesters marched up and down Lindell Boulevard, chanting in the rain from Arby’s to McDonald’s to Domino’s, past a Jack in the Box and a Qdoba, they appeared to have little impact on the lunchtime rush, just supportive honks from drivers and a few people stepping out of their offices to take video of the march on cellphones.
And by the time the protesters headed off to a lunch of their own before more marching in the afternoon, things were back to normal entirely at Arby’s, with a line at the drive-through, a full crew in the kitchen and a mechanical slicer clanking away, cutting meat for one $3.19 Roast Beef Classic after another.
Two-day protests at area fast-food restaurants part of national labor push
Workers are pushing back in St. Louis. When low wage workers unionize, we all benefit.
St. Louis Beacon, In Backroom
By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter
12:22 am on Thu, 05.09.13
Updated at 1:25 pm on Thu, 05.09.13
A work stoppage that began Wednesday morning with four employees at a Jimmy John’s in south St. Louis is slated to spread to at least two dozen other fast-food restaurants on Thursday, organizers say, as part of a national push to unionize fast-food workers and increase the minimum wage.
Rally in favor of higher minimum wage held outside McDonalds in Ferguson
Organizers expect at least 100 area fast-food employees to participate in the strike, which is supposed to last through Thursday – with workers back on the job by Friday.
The additional targeted fast-food outlets involve the Domino’s, Hardees and Wendy’s chains, activists say.
In a statement, a group called the St. Louis Organizing Committee said a coalition of labor organizations, clergy and community groups seek “to put money back in the pockets of the 36,000 men and women who work hard in the city’s fast food restaurants, but still can’t afford basic necessities like food, clothing, and rent.”
“The self-sufficiency standard for an adult with one child living in St. Louis County is $14.84 per hour working full time,” the group said. “If workers were paid more, they’d spend more, helping to get St. Louis’ economy moving again.”
A rally is slated for Thursday afternoon in University City after the walkouts at the various fast-food restaurants, in the city and St. Louis County, are scheduled to be well underway.
(Update) “Workers in fast-food jobs are no longer freckle-faced teenagers looking for some summer pocket change,” said the Rev. Martin Rafanan, director of "STL $7.35," in a statement.
“Increasingly, fast food jobs are the only options for St. Louisans, but these workers can’t even afford to pay for rent, food and bus fare. If the workers earned more, fast-food workers would spend that money at local businesses here in St. Louis and help lift our economy.” (End update)
The second targeted restaurant on Wednesday was a McDonald’s in Ferguson, where several dozen fast-food workers from around the region joined labor activists for an afternoon protest outside the restaurant along West Florissant.
Participants shouted “Can’t survive on $7.35!’’ -- a reference to Missouri’s current hourly minimum wage. The national minimum wage now is 10 cents lower, at $7.25 an hour.
“I’m striking because $7.35 is not enough to survive,’’ said Shermale Humphrey, 20, who said she has worked at the Ferguson McDonald’s for almost two years. She helps support several relatives, including her mother.
Humphrey was among several protesters who noted that most fast-food restaurants don’t provide health insurance or other benefits for their employees.
Humphrey added, “I don’t think I’ll lose my job for standing up for what’s right.”
Workers and management inside the Ferguson restaurant declined to comment. Representatives from several unions had entered the restaurant to deliver papers that they said underscored that federal law allows the workers to strike for 24 hours without retaliation. The representatives were asked to leave and not to leave behind any documents.
The rally participants included Brenda Holloway, who said she had worked for more than four years at the Jimmy John’s, 1631 South Broadway. Workers had issued a news release earlier Wednesday accusing the Jimmy John’s management of mistreatment.
Holloway said four of the restaurant’s workers were participating in the strike, which is slated to end late Thursday. She said others had signed up to join the protest as well but had backed out.
“They got afraid. They chickened out,’’ she said.
The local workers are getting encouragement from labor organizers from around the country, including New York and Chicago, where several walkouts have been held at fast-foot outlets.
Organizers say their aim is to push for a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers and others who hold low wage jobs, and to lobby for unionizing workers "without retaliation."
But walkout participant Alexius Mason, who works at the Ferguson McDonald's, says she'd be happy if she could earn at least $9 an hour. At least that would be an improvement, she said.
St. Louis Beacon, In Backroom
By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter
12:22 am on Thu, 05.09.13
Updated at 1:25 pm on Thu, 05.09.13
A work stoppage that began Wednesday morning with four employees at a Jimmy John’s in south St. Louis is slated to spread to at least two dozen other fast-food restaurants on Thursday, organizers say, as part of a national push to unionize fast-food workers and increase the minimum wage.
Organizers expect at least 100 area fast-food employees to participate in the strike, which is supposed to last through Thursday – with workers back on the job by Friday.
The additional targeted fast-food outlets involve the Domino’s, Hardees and Wendy’s chains, activists say.
In a statement, a group called the St. Louis Organizing Committee said a coalition of labor organizations, clergy and community groups seek “to put money back in the pockets of the 36,000 men and women who work hard in the city’s fast food restaurants, but still can’t afford basic necessities like food, clothing, and rent.”
“The self-sufficiency standard for an adult with one child living in St. Louis County is $14.84 per hour working full time,” the group said. “If workers were paid more, they’d spend more, helping to get St. Louis’ economy moving again.”
A rally is slated for Thursday afternoon in University City after the walkouts at the various fast-food restaurants, in the city and St. Louis County, are scheduled to be well underway.
(Update) “Workers in fast-food jobs are no longer freckle-faced teenagers looking for some summer pocket change,” said the Rev. Martin Rafanan, director of "STL $7.35," in a statement.
“Increasingly, fast food jobs are the only options for St. Louisans, but these workers can’t even afford to pay for rent, food and bus fare. If the workers earned more, fast-food workers would spend that money at local businesses here in St. Louis and help lift our economy.” (End update)
The second targeted restaurant on Wednesday was a McDonald’s in Ferguson, where several dozen fast-food workers from around the region joined labor activists for an afternoon protest outside the restaurant along West Florissant.
Participants shouted “Can’t survive on $7.35!’’ -- a reference to Missouri’s current hourly minimum wage. The national minimum wage now is 10 cents lower, at $7.25 an hour.
“I’m striking because $7.35 is not enough to survive,’’ said Shermale Humphrey, 20, who said she has worked at the Ferguson McDonald’s for almost two years. She helps support several relatives, including her mother.
Humphrey was among several protesters who noted that most fast-food restaurants don’t provide health insurance or other benefits for their employees.
Humphrey added, “I don’t think I’ll lose my job for standing up for what’s right.”
Workers and management inside the Ferguson restaurant declined to comment. Representatives from several unions had entered the restaurant to deliver papers that they said underscored that federal law allows the workers to strike for 24 hours without retaliation. The representatives were asked to leave and not to leave behind any documents.
The rally participants included Brenda Holloway, who said she had worked for more than four years at the Jimmy John’s, 1631 South Broadway. Workers had issued a news release earlier Wednesday accusing the Jimmy John’s management of mistreatment.
Holloway said four of the restaurant’s workers were participating in the strike, which is slated to end late Thursday. She said others had signed up to join the protest as well but had backed out.
“They got afraid. They chickened out,’’ she said.
The local workers are getting encouragement from labor organizers from around the country, including New York and Chicago, where several walkouts have been held at fast-foot outlets.
Organizers say their aim is to push for a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers and others who hold low wage jobs, and to lobby for unionizing workers "without retaliation."
But walkout participant Alexius Mason, who works at the Ferguson McDonald's, says she'd be happy if she could earn at least $9 an hour. At least that would be an improvement, she said.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Mo. prevailing wage overhaul sent to governor
The Republican majority in the Missouri Legislature has sent their plan to lower wages to the Governor. If (When?) Guv. Nixon vetoes the bill, can the Repubs override his veto in September. How about a big labor party at the Veto session?
http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/state-and-regional/mo-prevailing-wage-overhaul-sent-to-governor/article_5343c631-e70b-59af-b7bc-0a3ae7c1069d.html
http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/state-and-regional/mo-prevailing-wage-overhaul-sent-to-governor/article_5343c631-e70b-59af-b7bc-0a3ae7c1069d.html
Friday, May 3, 2013
Right-to-work legislation will weaken Missouri's economy
5/3/13
St. Louis Post Dispatch Letter to the Editor
The article by Barry Aycock, CEO of AgXplore International Inc., ("Right-to-work legislation will weaken Missouri's economy," May 1) calls into question the agenda that is instilled upon our elected right-wing politicians in Jefferson City. It has become apparent that these politicians will spend more time and energy on trying to dismantle the unions in our state, cut state programs for those in need, lower taxes for the rich, and raise taxes for the poor. Essentially these so-called religious right-wingers and economic experts could care less about having morals or seeing economic stimulus here in our state.
As stated in Mr. Aycock's article, eight of the 10 poorest states are right-to-work, along with seven of those 10 states representing the highest unemployment rates in the country. It would be advantageous for these legislators to forget about repaying those anti-union lobbyists with such policies, and to acknowledge the simple facts of the importance of having unions here in Missouri. Along with a higher union wage comes benefits for everyone. These solid, hard-earned wages create various forms of economic stimulus through a higher taxable income, money spent on education, automobiles, homes, and everyday community expenses. Economic stimulus and job creation does not result from cutting workers' pay and benefits.
For those states surrounding us that are right-to-work, they have not lured any positive businesses to the area or created any positive results for their citizens. However, they have been effective in implementing lower wages, lower graduation rates, less education dollars, lower living standards, slim health care coverage, more on-the-job deaths, highest unemployment rates in the country, poorest states in the country, and many more negative outcomes from becoming right-to-work states. This agenda did not work for the Southern states, and it is certainly not the answer for Missouri.
Maybe those of you in Jefferson City could take some time to study the facts of those states that have already become right-to-work. The facts don't lie. Missouri will not survive as a right-to-work state.
Dan Dempster • Wildwood
'Right to work' unlikely to move forward this session
"We'll be moving a lot faster and earlier next year and hopefully the
Senate will show some interest." Mo House Speaker Tim Jones
So it looks like the MO Legislature won't pass right to work this year. It's also clear that the anti-worker forces will be back. All this means is we have more time to get ready. Keep organizing!
Posted: Thursday, May 2, 2013 10:31 am
By Marie French Missouri Digital News
JEFFERSON CITY - While a pro-business agenda has been fast-tracked by Missouri's Republican-controlled General Assembly this session, one issue has been pushed to the sidelines.
An effort to let workers refuse to join or pay dues to a union appears to have stalled once again. The chance of what supporters often call “right to work” getting to the floor in either chamber appears slim.
The spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said right to work would not happen this year. Earlier in the year, at a mid-session press conference, Dempsey himself said many senators were passionate about the issue because they believe Missouri not being a right-to-work state puts Missouri at a competitive disadvantage.
“But they also recognize that we have a Democratic governor who has said he’ll veto the legislation and that we simply lack the votes to move it forward over his objections,” Dempsey said.
The right-to-work bills would make it illegal for joining a union to be a requirement for employment. This would mean an employee with a union employer could refuse to pay union dues.
Opponents argue such measures are intended to destroy labor unions because individuals could get the benefit of collective bargaining by the union without paying dues. Supporters counter that employees should have the freedom to join a union or not if they choose and that right-to-work states are more attractive to businesses.
Division in the business community
One obstacle for right-to-work legislation has been the lack of unified support for the efforts in the business community.
Some businesses oppose right-to-work legislation.
Emily Martin, president of Aschinger Electric, said she declined to join the Missouri Chamber of Commerce because of its support for right to work. Aschinger Electric is an electrical contracting firm based in St. Louis. She said her company has been unionized since it started.
“It’s a business decision as to whether I want to contract with organized labor,” Martin said. “In our work with our skilled trades, there are benefits to contracting with unions.”
She said the unions invest in training and provide a pool of skilled labor to draw on when the company needs to expand.
The Associated General Contractors of St. Louis also opposes the legislation. President Len Toenjes said the passage of such legislation would put members’ current union contracts at risk and could cost them millions and even force them to shut down.
“Many of our contractors have existing multi-year labor agreements,” Toenjes said. “In the short term there will be potential for a lot of out-of-state competition coming in. The potential would be to harm businesses that have been in St. Louis for decades.”
The St. Louis Regional Chamber has not taken a position on right to work. Large companies with a presence in Missouri, such as Emerson Electric, General Motors and Express Scripts, declined comment on the issue.
Some statewide business groups in Missouri have endorsed the legislation, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Tracy King, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of governmental affairs, said the group would continue to lobby for right-to-work legislation despite the lack of priority Republican leadership has given the issue. She said a survey of members conducted during the 2011 legislative session showed only 13 percent of their membership opposed right to work.
“It’s not a 100 percent, but it’s a predominant number,” King said.
She also referred to Indiana and said discussions with the chamber’s counterparts there indicated more businesses were choosing Indiana because of the change.
“Site selectors and consultants won’t even consider locating in a state that isn’t right to work,” King said. “The right to work will continue to be a priority.”
Different routes for right to work
House Speaker Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County, said he was encouraged by a vote taken April 24 on a bill dealing with public safety issues. The House passed the bill, which included a provision prohibiting law enforcement agencies from requiring police officers to pay dues to a union. That bill is still awaiting a hearing in the Senate.
Jones said he doesn't think the Senate is interested in moving forward with right to work.
“The House has made a very clear statement that we are for worker freedom," Jones said. "I'm not sure there's a reason to move if the Senate is not interested."
Jones said during the mid-session press conference that other business-supported economic development legislation, such as prevailing wage and a measure that would prohibit unions from automatically deducting fees from worker paychecks, were steps toward making Missouri a right-to-work state.
“I think the time is coming. If Michigan and Indiana can do it, I don’t see why Missouri cannot either,” Jones said. “If you look at other states that have taken on these challenges, it’s been a multi-year process. I think these are significant building blocks in moving us toward an ultimate worker freedom state.”
While multiple bills were introduced in both the House and Senate with the goal of making Missouri a right-to-work state, there are two main avenues for reaching that goal.
While some of the bills would head to the desk of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon if passed, other bills would take an alternate route to avoid the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. Those bills would do so through the inclusion of a referendum clause that would place the issue on an election ballot without requiring the governor's approval.
In the House, a committee substitute with a referendum clause for right-to-work legislation passed out of the Workforce Development Committee, but has been in the Rules Committee since April 16. Since having committee hearings on Feb. 12, the right-to-work bills in the Senate have not seen any action.
The measure passed out of the House Workforce Development Committee would place the issue on the August 2014 primary election ballot.
Before the committee passed the measure, Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Lant said Republican leadership was continuing to research right to work and whether the issue should go before voters.
“As a caucus we decided it would be unfair to foist something on the voters of Missouri that they don’t want,” said Lant, R-Joplin, in March.
Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, said one question was whether to move forward on the bill containing a referendum clause, which he sponsored, or one without it.
“It’s a matter of weighing what you can actually accomplish,” Burlison said in March. “Is it easier to put it on the ballot or override a veto?”
Burlison sponsored the same measure last year, but in a press conference then-House Speaker Steve Tilley said Burlison was wasting his time. This year, Burlison said, Jones is a co-sponsor. Burlison said he thought the passage of similar laws in Michigan showed a trend toward more support for the legislation.
In 2012, Indiana expanded its right-to-work laws to include private sector employers. Previously, it only applied to school employees. Michigan became the 24th state to enact right to work.
Jones cited those states as evidence that right to work could be a pro-business economic development tool.
“You are seeing growth and job creation in both of those states,” Jones said.
But right now, it doesn't look like the legislation will go anywhere -- at least not in the less than three weeks left in the session.
"We'll be moving a lot faster and earlier next year and hopefully the Senate will show some interest," Jones said. As for debating right to work on the floor of the House this year, "we'll have to wait and see."
So it looks like the MO Legislature won't pass right to work this year. It's also clear that the anti-worker forces will be back. All this means is we have more time to get ready. Keep organizing!
Posted: Thursday, May 2, 2013 10:31 am
By Marie French Missouri Digital News
JEFFERSON CITY - While a pro-business agenda has been fast-tracked by Missouri's Republican-controlled General Assembly this session, one issue has been pushed to the sidelines.
An effort to let workers refuse to join or pay dues to a union appears to have stalled once again. The chance of what supporters often call “right to work” getting to the floor in either chamber appears slim.
The spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said right to work would not happen this year. Earlier in the year, at a mid-session press conference, Dempsey himself said many senators were passionate about the issue because they believe Missouri not being a right-to-work state puts Missouri at a competitive disadvantage.
“But they also recognize that we have a Democratic governor who has said he’ll veto the legislation and that we simply lack the votes to move it forward over his objections,” Dempsey said.
The right-to-work bills would make it illegal for joining a union to be a requirement for employment. This would mean an employee with a union employer could refuse to pay union dues.
Opponents argue such measures are intended to destroy labor unions because individuals could get the benefit of collective bargaining by the union without paying dues. Supporters counter that employees should have the freedom to join a union or not if they choose and that right-to-work states are more attractive to businesses.
Division in the business community
One obstacle for right-to-work legislation has been the lack of unified support for the efforts in the business community.
Some businesses oppose right-to-work legislation.
Emily Martin, president of Aschinger Electric, said she declined to join the Missouri Chamber of Commerce because of its support for right to work. Aschinger Electric is an electrical contracting firm based in St. Louis. She said her company has been unionized since it started.
“It’s a business decision as to whether I want to contract with organized labor,” Martin said. “In our work with our skilled trades, there are benefits to contracting with unions.”
She said the unions invest in training and provide a pool of skilled labor to draw on when the company needs to expand.
The Associated General Contractors of St. Louis also opposes the legislation. President Len Toenjes said the passage of such legislation would put members’ current union contracts at risk and could cost them millions and even force them to shut down.
“Many of our contractors have existing multi-year labor agreements,” Toenjes said. “In the short term there will be potential for a lot of out-of-state competition coming in. The potential would be to harm businesses that have been in St. Louis for decades.”
The St. Louis Regional Chamber has not taken a position on right to work. Large companies with a presence in Missouri, such as Emerson Electric, General Motors and Express Scripts, declined comment on the issue.
Some statewide business groups in Missouri have endorsed the legislation, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Tracy King, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of governmental affairs, said the group would continue to lobby for right-to-work legislation despite the lack of priority Republican leadership has given the issue. She said a survey of members conducted during the 2011 legislative session showed only 13 percent of their membership opposed right to work.
“It’s not a 100 percent, but it’s a predominant number,” King said.
She also referred to Indiana and said discussions with the chamber’s counterparts there indicated more businesses were choosing Indiana because of the change.
“Site selectors and consultants won’t even consider locating in a state that isn’t right to work,” King said. “The right to work will continue to be a priority.”
Different routes for right to work
House Speaker Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County, said he was encouraged by a vote taken April 24 on a bill dealing with public safety issues. The House passed the bill, which included a provision prohibiting law enforcement agencies from requiring police officers to pay dues to a union. That bill is still awaiting a hearing in the Senate.
Jones said he doesn't think the Senate is interested in moving forward with right to work.
“The House has made a very clear statement that we are for worker freedom," Jones said. "I'm not sure there's a reason to move if the Senate is not interested."
Jones said during the mid-session press conference that other business-supported economic development legislation, such as prevailing wage and a measure that would prohibit unions from automatically deducting fees from worker paychecks, were steps toward making Missouri a right-to-work state.
“I think the time is coming. If Michigan and Indiana can do it, I don’t see why Missouri cannot either,” Jones said. “If you look at other states that have taken on these challenges, it’s been a multi-year process. I think these are significant building blocks in moving us toward an ultimate worker freedom state.”
While multiple bills were introduced in both the House and Senate with the goal of making Missouri a right-to-work state, there are two main avenues for reaching that goal.
While some of the bills would head to the desk of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon if passed, other bills would take an alternate route to avoid the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. Those bills would do so through the inclusion of a referendum clause that would place the issue on an election ballot without requiring the governor's approval.
In the House, a committee substitute with a referendum clause for right-to-work legislation passed out of the Workforce Development Committee, but has been in the Rules Committee since April 16. Since having committee hearings on Feb. 12, the right-to-work bills in the Senate have not seen any action.
The measure passed out of the House Workforce Development Committee would place the issue on the August 2014 primary election ballot.
Before the committee passed the measure, Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Lant said Republican leadership was continuing to research right to work and whether the issue should go before voters.
“As a caucus we decided it would be unfair to foist something on the voters of Missouri that they don’t want,” said Lant, R-Joplin, in March.
Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, said one question was whether to move forward on the bill containing a referendum clause, which he sponsored, or one without it.
“It’s a matter of weighing what you can actually accomplish,” Burlison said in March. “Is it easier to put it on the ballot or override a veto?”
Burlison sponsored the same measure last year, but in a press conference then-House Speaker Steve Tilley said Burlison was wasting his time. This year, Burlison said, Jones is a co-sponsor. Burlison said he thought the passage of similar laws in Michigan showed a trend toward more support for the legislation.
In 2012, Indiana expanded its right-to-work laws to include private sector employers. Previously, it only applied to school employees. Michigan became the 24th state to enact right to work.
Jones cited those states as evidence that right to work could be a pro-business economic development tool.
“You are seeing growth and job creation in both of those states,” Jones said.
But right now, it doesn't look like the legislation will go anywhere -- at least not in the less than three weeks left in the session.
"We'll be moving a lot faster and earlier next year and hopefully the Senate will show some interest," Jones said. As for debating right to work on the floor of the House this year, "we'll have to wait and see."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)