Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011 | 11:21 p.m. CDT
BY ALEXANDRIA BACA
COLUMBIA — Three labor groups that represent city employees presented proposals for higher wages and bargaining agreements to the City Council on Monday night.
Groups representing workers for the Water and Light, Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments and Columbia police officers have been negotiating with city officials since May on issues including wages and work contacts.
The City Council is not allowed to negotiate with employee groups, but is instead informed of negotiations by City Manager Mike Matthes. However, the council will ultimately decide whether their requests are approved.
Columbia police officers
Ashley Cuttle, executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association, presented her union’s requests to the City Council last.
The association presented only one request, the highest priority from an initial list of five proposals.
That priority is to reduce "salary compression" in the department. This occurs when new hires are given a starting salary higher than predecessors', whose pay is often at a stand-still because of tight budgets.
For the Columbia Police Department, this has resulted in situations in which superiors are paid less than the workers they manage.
In previous fiscal years, the department relieved this compression for the deputy chief, captains and lieutenants. “This year, it’s the sergeants’ turn,” Cuttle said.
By law, the Columbia Police Department had to ask City Council for permission. As a compromise, the police chief is only asking to do it for the most severely affected police sergeants.
About $45,000 worth of raises would be given to these sergeants using in-house funds budgeted by the police chief.
If the council gave the police chief permission to fix the salary compression for some sergeants, it would signify an act of good faith on the part of the city to continue what was started in previous fiscal years, Cuttle said.
It would also be a morale boost for the department.
“The Columbia Police Department already has a problem with recruitment and retention,” Cuttle remarked.
Water and Light employees
Rick Weirich spoke for Local 2 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents employees of the city’s Water and Light Department. Weirich said the union hopes for progress on three issues:
• The union said the city has been unwilling to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement with the union. Union members "want the security of an agreement, with predictable terms and conditions,” Weirich said.
• Workers are also unsatisfied with the 25 cent per hour wage increase proposed by the city, Weirich said. The union asked for wage increases of 2 percent for top-tier employees and 4 percent for other employees.
• The union contends that employees who benefit from the collective bargaining of the union should pay dues or the equivalent of dues to the union.
Other city departments
Parks and Recreation employees, along with those who work for the Public Works Department and the Municipal Power Plant, were represented by Local 773 of the Laborers' International Union of North America.
Paul Prendergast, a lawyer for Local 773, lobbied the city for a one-year work ordinance. A work ordinance is a type of city ordinance dealing with the working terms and conditions of a certain group, said Margrace Buckler, director of human resources for Columbia.
“Money has nothing to do with it,” Prendergast said. “What we’re asking is that the city agree that they are bound by the terms of the agreement.”
First Ward Councilman Fred Schmidt expressed the depth of the requests made by the three labor unions.
“I’ve heard quite a few complaints that are highly technical,” he said.
Matthes told council members there is no deadline for the requests presented at the work session. However, the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be voted on by the City Council in October.
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 19 at 7 p.m.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Woman fired for backing a union
Columbia Missourian
Monday, September 12, 2011
BY JOSH EIDELSON
Last month, Target fired Tashawna Green — but not for being bad at her job. They fired her, she says, for trying to make her job better.
Green, a 21-year-old single mom, was the most public supporter of a campaign to unionize the workers at her Long Island, N.Y., store. Before an unsuccessful union vote, she told The New York Times and other media outlets about the challenge of supporting her daughter on $8 an hour and insufficient hours. Her photo appeared in several newspapers.
Target, which has more than 1,760 American stores, earned $704 million in profits in the second quarter. Like its big-box competitor Walmart, Target has zero union employees in the United States.
That means none of Target's workers may bargain collectively over wages or the company's refusal to schedule more workers for full-time hours. More than 50 of Costco's nearly 600 stores, in contrast, are unionized.
Target isn't claiming Green didn't show up to work or couldn't do the job. Instead, the company put out a statement saying she was fired for acting "in an overly hostile, disruptive manner."
Green and representatives of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union say that's just a tricky way of saying she wanted to join a union, and Target doesn't want its employees to have that option.
The UFCW is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, saying Target illegally punished her for engaging in activism.
It would be nice to say that what happened to Green is unusual or that going to the government means she'll get justice. But the truth is that companies fire workers for union activity all the time, and they often get away with it.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than a third of companies respond to union elections by firing union activists. Other tactics that make workers fear losing their jobs are even more common, according to the institute.
Under the current law, companies dead-set on keeping out unions have a lot to gain by firing workers like Green. Firing union supporters removes them from the workplace and sends a chilling message to their co-workers.
Since none of us is perfect, it can be hard to prove to the government that union activism was the reason someone was fired — with appeals, the process can take years.
Even if a worker wins a case, usually the stiffest punishment a company faces is bringing the worker back to work, paying the wages she missed (minus any money earned at another job in the meantime) and posting a notice saying that it won't fire workers for union organizing in the future.
Unfortunately, that's a small price to pay for refusing to negotiate with your employees over their wages and benefits.
During the two years that Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, it looked like the Employee Free Choice Act might pass. The bill would have tripled the damages for companies that fire workers for union activism, as well as given workers the option of winning union recognition just by signing up a majority of their co-workers.
This majority sign-up ("card check") solution, which is the main way workers have won the opportunity to join unions in recent years, sparked a debate over its fairness. But there wasn't enough discussion of the problem that inspired it.
Workers like Green, who speak up to improve their jobs, too often lose their jobs as a result.
Workers who step up to organize their workplaces are really whistle-blowers. They break a silence that can otherwise leave people thinking that the problems they're experiencing are theirs alone.
They create an avenue for addressing workplace issues that can otherwise hurt not only workers but also their consumers and communities.
These workplace whistle-blowers deserve the respect of our culture and the protections of our legal system.
Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a former union organizer. He wrote this commentary for otherwords.org. His website is www.josheidelson.com.
Monday, September 12, 2011
BY JOSH EIDELSON
Last month, Target fired Tashawna Green — but not for being bad at her job. They fired her, she says, for trying to make her job better.
Green, a 21-year-old single mom, was the most public supporter of a campaign to unionize the workers at her Long Island, N.Y., store. Before an unsuccessful union vote, she told The New York Times and other media outlets about the challenge of supporting her daughter on $8 an hour and insufficient hours. Her photo appeared in several newspapers.
Target, which has more than 1,760 American stores, earned $704 million in profits in the second quarter. Like its big-box competitor Walmart, Target has zero union employees in the United States.
That means none of Target's workers may bargain collectively over wages or the company's refusal to schedule more workers for full-time hours. More than 50 of Costco's nearly 600 stores, in contrast, are unionized.
Target isn't claiming Green didn't show up to work or couldn't do the job. Instead, the company put out a statement saying she was fired for acting "in an overly hostile, disruptive manner."
Green and representatives of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union say that's just a tricky way of saying she wanted to join a union, and Target doesn't want its employees to have that option.
The UFCW is filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board, saying Target illegally punished her for engaging in activism.
It would be nice to say that what happened to Green is unusual or that going to the government means she'll get justice. But the truth is that companies fire workers for union activity all the time, and they often get away with it.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than a third of companies respond to union elections by firing union activists. Other tactics that make workers fear losing their jobs are even more common, according to the institute.
Under the current law, companies dead-set on keeping out unions have a lot to gain by firing workers like Green. Firing union supporters removes them from the workplace and sends a chilling message to their co-workers.
Since none of us is perfect, it can be hard to prove to the government that union activism was the reason someone was fired — with appeals, the process can take years.
Even if a worker wins a case, usually the stiffest punishment a company faces is bringing the worker back to work, paying the wages she missed (minus any money earned at another job in the meantime) and posting a notice saying that it won't fire workers for union organizing in the future.
Unfortunately, that's a small price to pay for refusing to negotiate with your employees over their wages and benefits.
During the two years that Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, it looked like the Employee Free Choice Act might pass. The bill would have tripled the damages for companies that fire workers for union activism, as well as given workers the option of winning union recognition just by signing up a majority of their co-workers.
This majority sign-up ("card check") solution, which is the main way workers have won the opportunity to join unions in recent years, sparked a debate over its fairness. But there wasn't enough discussion of the problem that inspired it.
Workers like Green, who speak up to improve their jobs, too often lose their jobs as a result.
Workers who step up to organize their workplaces are really whistle-blowers. They break a silence that can otherwise leave people thinking that the problems they're experiencing are theirs alone.
They create an avenue for addressing workplace issues that can otherwise hurt not only workers but also their consumers and communities.
These workplace whistle-blowers deserve the respect of our culture and the protections of our legal system.
Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a former union organizer. He wrote this commentary for otherwords.org. His website is www.josheidelson.com.
City council to hear union reps’ concerns
Union activity in Columbia is picking up.
By ANDREW DENNEY
Monday, September 12, 2011
Labor unions representing city workers will have a chance to air their grievances to the Columbia City Council tonight at a special work session.
Union representatives will have the council’s ear on several issues pertaining to city workers, including pay raises City Manager Mike Matthes proposed for the coming fiscal year and the city’s rules of engagement for labor unions.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which covers employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said Matthes’ proposed 25-cent-per-hour raise does not do enough for workers who have to deal with higher health care insurance deductibles. With more expenses, Weirich said, the pay raise comes out to about 8 cents per hour.
Weirich also said the union is pushing for the city to adopt collective bargaining rules. The city’s ordinance regarding labor talks now follows the meet-and-confer process and prohibits collective bargaining between council members and labor unions. With a meet-and-confer process, Weirich said, the city’s administration is required to meet with union representatives to hear their concerns, but the administration is under no obligation to satisfy a union’s demands.
But with collective bargaining, Weirich said, it would be more likely a binding agreement between the city and unions could be reached. He said Water and Light employees have said the city has not been following its own ordinances regarding employee grievance procedures.
“They’re not wanting to play by the rules, it seems like to us,” Weirich said. Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010 after the employees contacted the union, he said.
Weirich said a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision that allows teachers’ unions to take part in collective bargaining with districts should also extend to municipal employees.
Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, will also come before the council tonight to discuss disparities in policies between the 12 divisions of the department, said Regina Guevara, a union representative.
The Columbia Police Officers Association also will address the council to discuss pay raises for police sergeants. City spokeswoman Toni Messina said the city could consider the issue in preparations for the fiscal year 2013 budget but said city leaders did not want to give higher raises to one particular group of employees in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
The work session will be at 6 p.m. in conference rooms 1A and 1B at City Hall.
By ANDREW DENNEY
Monday, September 12, 2011
Labor unions representing city workers will have a chance to air their grievances to the Columbia City Council tonight at a special work session.
Union representatives will have the council’s ear on several issues pertaining to city workers, including pay raises City Manager Mike Matthes proposed for the coming fiscal year and the city’s rules of engagement for labor unions.
Rick Weirich, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2, which covers employees from the city’s Water and Light Department, said Matthes’ proposed 25-cent-per-hour raise does not do enough for workers who have to deal with higher health care insurance deductibles. With more expenses, Weirich said, the pay raise comes out to about 8 cents per hour.
Weirich also said the union is pushing for the city to adopt collective bargaining rules. The city’s ordinance regarding labor talks now follows the meet-and-confer process and prohibits collective bargaining between council members and labor unions. With a meet-and-confer process, Weirich said, the city’s administration is required to meet with union representatives to hear their concerns, but the administration is under no obligation to satisfy a union’s demands.
But with collective bargaining, Weirich said, it would be more likely a binding agreement between the city and unions could be reached. He said Water and Light employees have said the city has not been following its own ordinances regarding employee grievance procedures.
“They’re not wanting to play by the rules, it seems like to us,” Weirich said. Local 2 has represented Water and Light employees since late 2010 after the employees contacted the union, he said.
Weirich said a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision that allows teachers’ unions to take part in collective bargaining with districts should also extend to municipal employees.
Laborers International Union of North America Local 773, which represents employees from the city’s Public Works Department, will also come before the council tonight to discuss disparities in policies between the 12 divisions of the department, said Regina Guevara, a union representative.
The Columbia Police Officers Association also will address the council to discuss pay raises for police sergeants. City spokeswoman Toni Messina said the city could consider the issue in preparations for the fiscal year 2013 budget but said city leaders did not want to give higher raises to one particular group of employees in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1.
The work session will be at 6 p.m. in conference rooms 1A and 1B at City Hall.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
This Labor Day, let’s work to restore balance
Hey! The Columbia Tribune ran a pro-union commentary on Labor Day! This is the first time I can remember them running anything about labor unions on Labor Day. Thanks Tribune!
By KIMBERLY FREEMAN BROWN
Sunday, September 4, 2011
What a year it’s been for working families. Since last Labor Day, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on the middle class from CEOs and corporate-backed lawmakers in workplaces, in the states and on Capitol Hill.
Millions are still jobless, and income inequality is at an all-time high, with black and Latino families bearing a hugely disproportionate share of the burden.
The good news? We’ve already started to turn back the tide. Grass-roots mobilizations in Wisconsin and across the country are rooted in a growing awareness that workers joining together in unions are a vital counterbalance to the CEOs and corporate-backed politicians who ran our economy into the ground.
After all, we have unions to thank for a lot of things we take for granted: the minimum wage, the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, health and safety standards. And studies show a large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.
One of the best things we can do for our economy is ensure that workers who want to have a union have a fair chance to do so. In June, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed a rule intended to accomplish just that by cutting back on costly litigation and needless delays that stand in the way of a fair vote for workers. It’s a modest proposal, but given the economic crisis we find ourselves in, an important one.
Predictably, the same corporate interests and right-wing politicians rolling back workers’ rights nationwide are opposing the NLRB, and they’re working overtime to malign unions at every opportunity, hoping Americans will forget everything that unions have done and continue to do to help workers.
This Labor Day, we’ve got to fight back harder than ever for a fair vote at work and a fair shake in the economy.
Kimberly Freeman Brown is executive director of American Rights at Work, a labor policy and advocacy organization.
By KIMBERLY FREEMAN BROWN
Sunday, September 4, 2011
What a year it’s been for working families. Since last Labor Day, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on the middle class from CEOs and corporate-backed lawmakers in workplaces, in the states and on Capitol Hill.
Millions are still jobless, and income inequality is at an all-time high, with black and Latino families bearing a hugely disproportionate share of the burden.
The good news? We’ve already started to turn back the tide. Grass-roots mobilizations in Wisconsin and across the country are rooted in a growing awareness that workers joining together in unions are a vital counterbalance to the CEOs and corporate-backed politicians who ran our economy into the ground.
After all, we have unions to thank for a lot of things we take for granted: the minimum wage, the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, health and safety standards. And studies show a large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.
One of the best things we can do for our economy is ensure that workers who want to have a union have a fair chance to do so. In June, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposed a rule intended to accomplish just that by cutting back on costly litigation and needless delays that stand in the way of a fair vote for workers. It’s a modest proposal, but given the economic crisis we find ourselves in, an important one.
Predictably, the same corporate interests and right-wing politicians rolling back workers’ rights nationwide are opposing the NLRB, and they’re working overtime to malign unions at every opportunity, hoping Americans will forget everything that unions have done and continue to do to help workers.
This Labor Day, we’ve got to fight back harder than ever for a fair vote at work and a fair shake in the economy.
Kimberly Freeman Brown is executive director of American Rights at Work, a labor policy and advocacy organization.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Collective bargaining heads to school board Policy group likes single-rep option.
The CPS policy committee recommendation is a good first step toward real bargaining, rather than the convoluted, multiple vote "multiple representation" system that MSTA supports. Remember that when the MNEA lawsuit reached the Missouri Supreme Court in 2007, MSTA and the Missouri Council of School Administrators jointly filed a brief opposing collective bargaining. The brief included this in the table of contents:
…Collective Bargaining Would Constitute Poor Public Policy
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Students
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Teachers
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Taxpayers and Voters
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Education.
Now they claim to support bargaining and seek to prove it by proposing the unworkable, never before used in the United State of America "multiple representative system." Right.
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Columbia Daily Tribune
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Columbia Public Schools policy committee will recommend to the school board a collective-bargaining policy that calls for exclusive representation.
There is no district policy in place for collective bargaining, but a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court ruling said all public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have the constitutional right to collectively bargain.
The committee has primarily discussed two versions of a recommended policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association. One results in one bargaining representative after a single election; the other would allow the selection of a single representative, multiple bargaining representatives or no representation and could require multiple votes.
Some were unhappy with the committee’s decision today to only recommend one policy to the board at its September meeting.
“I do think that the multiple representation option should be presented to the board because there are two versions,” said Kari Schuster, president of the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association. “Yes, policy No. 1 may be the safest to many, but policy No. 2 has its valid points.”
The committee agreed to present three policy options to the board — a third choice allows for a “meet and confer” method of bargaining — but will only recommend one.
“From this committee’s standpoint, we need to present something to the board, and we need to explain to the board why this is the policy we’re recommending,” school board and policy committee member Helen Wade said.
The decision to recommend the first policy is based on recommendations from MSBA, information from other school districts and public forums, said Dana Clippard, the school district’s director of human resources.
“All collective bargaining done in every other state is exclusive representation; there is no other experience out there with doing multiple representatives,” Superintendent Chris Belcher said. “We don’t want to put ourselves in the position of being a trial.”
An appellate court has not weighed in on the multiple representatives policy, Wade also pointed out, and although both policies have valid points, the exclusive representation model is simpler and safer.
“When looking for a representative, we have one representative of a district; we have one president. … It’s something people can get their minds around and are generally accustomed to dealing with,” she said.
The board likely will not vote on the policy until October. The first reading next month will give board members and the public a chance to ask questions and representatives from teachers’ organizations to explain their positions on the policy. The Columbia Missouri National Education Association has voiced support for the exclusive representation model.
“This will give us two full months of discussion and open debate,” Belcher said.
The school board will meet at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 12 at the district administration building, 1818 W. Worley St.
Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.
…Collective Bargaining Would Constitute Poor Public Policy
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Students
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Teachers
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Taxpayers and Voters
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Education.
Now they claim to support bargaining and seek to prove it by proposing the unworkable, never before used in the United State of America "multiple representative system." Right.
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Columbia Daily Tribune
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Columbia Public Schools policy committee will recommend to the school board a collective-bargaining policy that calls for exclusive representation.
There is no district policy in place for collective bargaining, but a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court ruling said all public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have the constitutional right to collectively bargain.
The committee has primarily discussed two versions of a recommended policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association. One results in one bargaining representative after a single election; the other would allow the selection of a single representative, multiple bargaining representatives or no representation and could require multiple votes.
Some were unhappy with the committee’s decision today to only recommend one policy to the board at its September meeting.
“I do think that the multiple representation option should be presented to the board because there are two versions,” said Kari Schuster, president of the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association. “Yes, policy No. 1 may be the safest to many, but policy No. 2 has its valid points.”
The committee agreed to present three policy options to the board — a third choice allows for a “meet and confer” method of bargaining — but will only recommend one.
“From this committee’s standpoint, we need to present something to the board, and we need to explain to the board why this is the policy we’re recommending,” school board and policy committee member Helen Wade said.
The decision to recommend the first policy is based on recommendations from MSBA, information from other school districts and public forums, said Dana Clippard, the school district’s director of human resources.
“All collective bargaining done in every other state is exclusive representation; there is no other experience out there with doing multiple representatives,” Superintendent Chris Belcher said. “We don’t want to put ourselves in the position of being a trial.”
An appellate court has not weighed in on the multiple representatives policy, Wade also pointed out, and although both policies have valid points, the exclusive representation model is simpler and safer.
“When looking for a representative, we have one representative of a district; we have one president. … It’s something people can get their minds around and are generally accustomed to dealing with,” she said.
The board likely will not vote on the policy until October. The first reading next month will give board members and the public a chance to ask questions and representatives from teachers’ organizations to explain their positions on the policy. The Columbia Missouri National Education Association has voiced support for the exclusive representation model.
“This will give us two full months of discussion and open debate,” Belcher said.
The school board will meet at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 12 at the district administration building, 1818 W. Worley St.
Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)