Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Public Employees: Myths and Realities

Labor Notes
Mark Brenner
|  December 20, 2010




With all the venom directed at public employees these days, it’s hard to separate the facts from the attacks. Here’s a guide to common claims made about government spending, taxes, and public employees.

The Claim: Government employees are overpaid.
The Facts: The Economic Policy Institute measured state and local public workers against their private sector counterparts with the same age, experience, and education. They found that public workers earn about 11 percent less.
Public workers had better benefits on average, but even when health care and retirement were included, public workers were still 4 percent behind private sector counterparts.
Claims that state and local government workers are overpaid often fail to account for their education and experience. Fifty-four percent have at least a four-year college degree, compared to 35 percent in the private sector.
The Claim: The federal deficit is out of control.
The Facts: It’s true that this year’s budget deficit—projected to be 10.3 percent of U.S. economic activity—is the highest since World War II. Whether it’s a problem depends on your time frame and how we address it.
Short-term government spending was the only thing that kept the economy from cratering in 2008. It staved off a second Great Depression.
With no private sector investment in sight, public spending will be the only engine for job creation in the foreseeable future. Aside from the pain created by high unemployment, no jobs means no recovery for tax collections and therefore a widening deficit.
The deficit is a long-term problem if we do nothing, but before doing something we have to look at spending and revenues. The bulk of federal spending is on the military (22 percent) and health care, including Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s health programs (21 percent).
The obvious place to start trimming is today’s military budget, which is two and a half times what it was 10 years ago. Health care costs are also skyrocketing, because they are driven by for-profit health care. A single-payer system like “Medicare for all” would correct that.
The Claim: Taxes are too high.
The Facts: Depends whose taxes you mean. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, overall taxes in the U.S. are the third lowest among industrialized countries (only Turkey and Mexico are lower). Corporate taxes are also lower than in most other industrial nations.
But there are inequities—and they favor the rich. People at the bottom of the income ladder, the lowest 20 percent, pay almost twice as much of their income in state and local taxes as the top 1 percent. The poor pay 11 percent, the rich just 6 percent.
At the end of World War II corporations paid more than a third of all taxes collected by the federal government. Today they pay only 10 percent. The burden was shifted to individuals, and as taxes on the wealthy were cut over the last 30 years, the liability has been transferred to working people.
The Claim: The private sector is more efficient than government.
The Facts: Advocates claim outsourcing will save money. But after more than two decades of experience, reality isn’t so clear-cut.
Cost overruns combined with the cost of contract monitoring and administration often makes privatization more expensive than in-house services. According to a 2007 survey by the International City/County Management Association, more than one in five local governments had brought previously outsourced services back in house.
In most cases insufficient cost savings were cited as a primary reason. And where contracting out does produce savings, they typically come from lower wages and benefits for workers—not some supposed inherent superiority of business.
The Claim: Government waste, fraud and abuse are rampant.
The Facts: Government-bashers love to talk about overpaid, do-nothing bureaucrats, but if you’re looking for misused tax dollars your best bet is to scour the Chamber of Commerce’s membership list. Defense contracts and construction projects like the “Big Dig” in Boston hold taxpayers hostage with wildly inaccurate, often fraudulent cost estimates.
According to the Project on Government Oversight’s database of federal contractor misconduct, the top five defense contractors have racked up 156 instances of misconduct since 1995, totaling $3.57 billion in fraud and waste.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Victory for Express Scripts Workers!

Great news from Jobs with Justice.  Solidarity across state and national borders is the only way to beat multi-national corporations.

Express Scripts, Inc. reverses decision to close plant; 400 family-supporting, union jobs saved

After a months-long struggle with Express Scripts, Inc., SEIU workers, Missouri Jobs with Justice, St. Louis Area Workers' Rights Board and other activists have forced Express Scripts Inc. (ESI) to reverse their decision to shutter all Bensalem, PA operations-- saving 400 family-supporting, union jobs and providing a substantial severance package to 500 workers facing layoffs at another plant in the city.
"This settlement will keep hundreds of good jobs here in Bensalem, and make sure anyone who gets laid off will be able to provide for their families in this harsh economy," said Linda Chan, a Pharmacy Tech at the Marshall Lane facility, and a member of the SEIU Healthcare bargaining committee.
SEIU members had been engaging in a national campaign to put pressure on ESI to maintain quality jobs in Bensalem when the company announced it would close both the Marshall Lane and Bensalem facilities. In August, 50 ESI workers from Bensalem, PA- facing severe pay and benefits cuts- drove to ESI headquarters in St. Louis to meet with CEO George Paz face-to-face and protestthe cuts, meeting with members of the St. Louis Workers' Rights Board while they were here.
In November, three ESI workers were suspended for reaching out to ESI clients, and SEIU workers contacted St. Louis Workers' Rights Board again. St. Louis WRB agreed to hold an Investigative Hearing on ESI's worker abuse. Instead of agreeing to come to the hearing, Paz reopened negotiations- and a settlement was reached in the late hours the day before the Investigative Hearing was to take place. Paz also agreed to reinstate the suspended workers.
"This has been a very difficult challenge...by sticking together we saved 400 good jobs for this community and won an excellent severance package for laid off workers that most non-union workers could only dream about," said Rickie Stemley, a Pharmacy Tech at the Marshall Lane facility.
Read more at the Missouri Jobs with Justice website or SEIU'swebsite.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Project Labor Agreements under Attack as Non-Union Contractors Try to Pick Off Public Jobs

Looks like another national movement that started in California may be headed our way.    If there is a way to pay workers less to increase profits, it seems to be headed our way.  Get ready for another fight.  
From Labor Notes  by Jenny Brown, Dec. 13, 2010
Idled by the housing bust, non-union contractors are attacking agreements that building trades unions have used to defend their work for the last two decades.   
Residential and light industrial construction, dominated by non-union firms, is still flat on its back. Construction employment is at a 14-year low, the Department of Labor reported in October. But some publicly funded work is still going ahead, thanks to federal stimulus funds and to state and local spending.Idled by the housing bust, non-union contractors are attacking agreements that building trades unions have used to defend their work for the last two decades.
Now, non-union construction firms, fighting for market share, want to bring their low wages and bad work rules to those taxpayer-funded jobs.
Associated Builders and Contractors, an employer group, is crowing about its latest victory—a November 2 ballot measure that passed by 75.8 percent in San Diego County, California. ABC is vowing a “50-state strategy” to ban Project Labor Agreements.
The ballot strategy may be dangerous for construction union job standards because PLAs, unlike prevailing wage laws, are confusing and opaque to the general public. Prevailing wage laws can be defended by saying that public dollars shouldn’t encourage low-wage work. PLAs can sound more like a backroom deal.
PLAs are negotiated between the employer and unions to set wages and work rules before a large project is bid. In return, unions promise not to strike or engage in other job actions for the duration of the project.
Non-union contractors may bid on the project, but they must pay the wages and benefits outlined in the agreement.

‘FAIR AND OPEN’

The proposition on the San Diego County ballot claimed it would “ensure fair and open competition for county construction contracts.”

What’s a Project Labor Agreement?

PLAs are agreements struck between funders of a building project—public or private—and the building trades unions that are expected to have members working at the site. They’re used for large, complicated projects. Federal guidelines say they should be considered for projects costing more than $25 million.
PLAs started out as a compromise by building trades unions to secure work. Court decisions in the late 1970s and 1980s allowed construction employers to get out of “pre-hire” agreements to hire union workers, so the unions created these project by project agreements. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their legality on public projects.
Generally, a Project Labor Agreement will set wages at or slightly below union scale, but far above what non-union companies will pay. In return for promising not to engage in any job actions during the project, unions get a guarantee of particular pay and work rules. If a subcontractor is non-union, his workers will work union during that project, getting the same wages and benefits and paying union dues.
George W. Bush banned PLAs on federally funded jobs, but Barack Obama reinstated them shortly after he took office.
PLAs decrease inter-trade fights over which union gets what part of the work, because jurisdiction is agreed to in advance.
Careful comparison studies confirm that projects using PLAs don’t cost more, because union workers tend to be more efficient.
But PLAs are double-edged swords. Costs may also be comparable to non-PLA jobs because workers are bound not to take “costly” job actions, the kind that get the goods.
—Jenny Brown
It sounds like some kind of civil rights measure, and that’s how ABC portrayed it in the media. San Diego ABC president Scott Crosby argued that the requirement that employers pay a worker union scale is discrimination against that worker, who is “forced to join a union” for the duration of the job. It’s also discriminatory against the non-union contractor, he said, who could win the bid if he didn’t have to provide higher pay and benefits.
The ballot measure prevents the county from requiring contractors to enter into Project Labor Agreements for construction projects it controls.
This is the third win for the employers group, which won ballot measures in two San Diego County municipalities before convincing the Board of Supervisors to put the measure on a county-wide ballot.
The unions struggled to convince voters of their case. After sinking a half-million dollars trying to defeat the measure in Chula Vista in June, the San Diego Labor Council decided not to spend money to fight the county-wide ban, although it raised a lot of media attention and spoke loudly against its passage.
“When workers are protected… when we give health care to workers, all of us are made better,” Council Secretary-Treasurer Lorena Gonzalez said after the vote. “The contractors are going to continue to fight that because it means less profit for them, and that’s all they care about.”

TAXPAYER REVOLT

Although their goal is to get access to public money, anti-union contractors are using the same “taxpayer revolt” arguments against union construction workers that have been used against teachers and other public employees.
The contractors claim they are watching out for taxpayer dollars and that PLAs drive up costs. One study of schools in Massachusetts claimed that projects governed by PLAs cost 14 to 17 percent more. But projects governed by PLAs are likely to be more complicated, and therefore more expensive. A high school science lab costs more to build per square foot than an elementary school classroom, no matter who is building it.
Additional studies which took these factors into account found that PLAs didn’t drive up costs. Experts say the work is more efficient and jurisdictional fights don’t hold up construction.
Still, the claim appears plausible to many since wages are certainly higher than they would be if bottom-feeding non-union contractors got the work.
ABC has also attacked PLAs by creating stories to feed to the press. The AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department alerted local leaders to one such case November 10.
According to the AFL-CIO, the contractors group paid for an audit that found alleged violations of labor law by union contractors involved in a PLA for the Los Angeles school district. Then the group promoted the audit as an impartial revelation of wrongdoing. The department warned union officers to watch out for similar tactics in their areas.

GREATER NEEDS

Anti-PLA efforts are a pain in the side for construction trade unions. But preserving PLAs will not fix the main issues, said David Minasian, a union carpenter in Worcester, Massachusetts.
His local feels most intensely the incredible rate of construction worker unemployment, 17.3 percent nationwide and 25 percent in his local. “We need reauthorization of unemployment benefits and we need a big round of infrastructure spending,” he said.
The Laborers union echoes that sentiment, pointing to the crying need for public construction dollars and pushing for a surface transportation bill that’s been stalled in Congress.
To gin up support, Laborers billboards in Pennsylvania warn drivers about the condition of the bridge they’re about to cross, with alarming pictures of crumbling concrete. According to the union, 5,646 bridges in Pennsylvania are “structurally deficient.”
Under the new Congress, the bill faces an uphill battle.
Non-union construction contractors are joining the taxpayer revolt at their own peril. If the anti-tax furor gains ground and publicly funded projects dry up, there won’t be much work for anyone anytime soon.

Friday, December 10, 2010

In Iowa, Lockout Continues for Roquette America Workers

By Akito Yoshikane 

Working In These Times, Dec. 8, 2010

More than 240 union workers for Roquette America in southeastern Iowa have been locked out of their jobs since September after they rejected a concession-heavy contract that they say undermines their collective bargaining agreement.


The two sides are at a stalemate over wages and benefits at the company’s corn milling facility located in Keokuk, a small city of about 11,000 that borders Illinois and Missouri. The company has since hired replacement workers; some of the long-time union employees are now relying onunemployment benefits as negotiations continue to stall amid accusations ofunion busting.

Roquette America, a subsidiary of Roquette Frères in France, produces corn starches, syrups and starch derivatives. The employees are represented byLocal 48G of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, an AFL-CIO affiliate.
Negotiations for a new contract began in August and formal talks began in mid-September. The union says the conflict arose when Roquette hired outside parties and brought more than 130 proposals that essentially “gutted” the collective bargaining agreement.

The two major points of contention are changes to the health insurance and use of temporary workers. According to the labor group, Roquette wants more management rights, including the ability implement seniority-based layoffs. For the current employees, Roquette wants to freeze wages, change retirement benefits and increase worker contributions to healthcare. The company also wants authority to hire temporary workers without benefits. That suggests a proposal for a two-tier employee model, a trend that is growing across the country

Local 48 G rejected the proposals in late September, leading to the lockout as the company brought in more than 60 replacement workers. The two sides have met 18 times in recent months and a federal mediator has been involved in negotiations.

The company has said that the industry has become more competitive compared to four years ago when the last contract was signed. Roquette America president and CEO Dominique Taret explained the reasons for why the company is asking for concessions.

“Uncertain economic conditions, increasing regional and international competition, changing market demands and more strict governmental regulations require businesses to adapt quickly and perform better in order to be competitive,” he wrote in a statement.

In a second open letter to the community last Friday, Taret focused on six core goals to improve their facilities. He writes:
The Company’s contract proposal focuses on six core goals to improve plant operations; achieve greater workforce stability; improve competency development; enhance job performance and accountability; increase workforce flexibility; and compensation system stability.  These labor proposals attempt to balance the needs of our employees and protect their interests while seeking changes that will allow us to accomplish these six critical goals.
It’s unclear whether Roquette is profiting, but the global company has received local funding. The company announced in June plans to for a $27 million remodeling project, receiving $2.5 million in tax benefits. The union estimates Roquette has received $4.5 million from the city and state.

While the company plans to modernize the facility, the concessions come at a hard time for the local community. Keokuk, located in Lee County, is part of an area that has one the highest unemployment rates in Iowa. Since negotiations began in August, the jobless figure increased from 10.7 percent to 10.9 in October, according to Iowa Workforce Development. Lee County is currently the only county in Iowa with jobless figures in the double digits.

The local mayor has not taken sides but has urged an end to the lockout. Meanwhile the French union representing Roquette employees in France sent a letter of support. And solidarity marches with local labor groups have continued in Keokuk.

Both sides have continued to express a desire to reach an agreement. Three more bargaining sessions are reportedly scheduled in the coming weeks.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Social Security Facts Vs Fog


Conservative just hate Social Security. The Social Security program is an example of government at its best. It demonstrates We, the People taking care of and watching out for each other. It works, it is efficient and effective, and people love it. For their war against government to work conservatives have to find a way to undermine Social Security.
Conservatives have been at war with Social Security since its inception. They call it a "Ponzi scheme." They claim that it is "going broke." They claim that people live longer so we should increase the retirement age... They claim a lot of things. The question is, are any of them true? Or is each just one more area where conservatives are trying to throw up a smokescreen to mask their real intentions? (because it's what they do.)
How much of what we hear about Social Security are facts, and how much is just fog?
One thing that most people do not know is that conservatives have been following an actual plan, a step-by-step strategy to get rid of Social Security, that was laid out a couple of decades a go. A 1983 Cato Institute Journal document, "Achieving a Leninist Strategy" by Stuart Butler of the Cato Institute and Peter Germanis of The Heritage Foundation lays it out for us. The document is still available at Cato, and select quotes are available at Plotting Privatization? from Z Magazine. It is worth reading the entire document (in particular the section "Weakening the Opposition") to understand completely the strategy that has been unfolding in the years since, but the following quotes give you an idea:
"Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent upon ... its success in isolating and weakening its opponents. ... we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy."
" construct ... a coalition that will ... reap benefits from the IRA-based private system ... but also the banks, insurance companies, and other institutions that will gain from providing such plans to the public."
"The first element consists of a campaign to achieve small legislative changes that embellish the present IRA system, making it in practice a small-scale private Social Security system.
"The second main element ... involves what one might crudely call guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it."
"The banking industry and other business groups that can benefit from expanded IRAs ..." "... the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to ... neutralize ... the coalition that supports the existing system."
"The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. ... it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."
So there you have it. This shows how many of the arguments are just fog, not fact. And it shows how private interests intend to "reap benefits" from getting rid of Social Security: namely, they get a lot of the money instead of the retirees.
This time the attack is riding piggyback on concerns about budget deficits. First there was a big bruhaha about deficits, then the answer is offered: cut Social Security's benefits. But Social Security is not allowed to borrow by law, so it cannot contribute to deficits. In fact, since the 1983 changes in the program Social Security has run surpluses, not deficits, and has built up a huge trust fund! Social Security won't run short until possibly 2037, and even then can pay most of its benefits with no changes. (Compare that to the military budget, which has to borrow hundreds of billions every single year.)
Last time it was President George W Bush attacking the program. Remember? Social Security was supposed to be "in crisis" and needed to be "privatized." The fog machine was trying to convince us to put the money into the stock market. But progressives rallied, saved the program, and now it is years later and the program is fine. Imagine where we would be if the program had been put into stocks!
Other times the fog machine has told us that Social Security "has a lower return" than putting the money into other investments, even though it is more than just retirement funds and also provides disability payments and other benefits. Or that there aren't as many workers per retiree as there used to be, even though that is not how the program works. Or that people live longer, even though that is mostly because fewer babies die. (The program was designed for increasing longevity and the 1983 changes accounted for any differences.) There is always a new attack.
Whatever the current attack might be, keep in mind that it is just one more attack. Instead of spending all your time trying to refute each lie while they throw up a dozen more, remember that they hate Social Security and they just lie. Of course, there is a risk that each time Social Security is attacked more of the public will get the idea that something must be wrong with the program, when there isn't. Keeping in mind that there is a corporate/conservative strategy at work to undermine the program helps to fight off the fog.
For politicians, Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson of the Strengthen Social Security coalition have a warning. In an LA Times op-ed the other day, Touching the 'third rail', they wrote,
For all the talk of polarization, the American people are clear and united about Social Security. A recent poll of those who voted in the midterm election found that 67% of respondents opposed cuts in benefits; 69% opposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 69. Respondents were also clear about what steps should be taken to address a looming shortfall. Some 66% of those polled favored doing away with the current cap on payroll taxes to fund Social Security. Currently, taxpayers are taxed only on their first $106,800 in income. Simply requiring upper-income taxpayers to pay the tax on all their income would bring in enough revenue to allow benefits to be raised across the board and still have the program in balance for at least the next 75 years.
. . . The message of the midterm election is that the American people are fed up with Washington elites who don't seem to listen. Despite the clear view of the American people, the elites in Washington seem to think it would be better to reduce benefits than to require the wealthy to pay the same percentage of their salaries into Social Security as everyone else does.
If politicians choose to cut Social Security benefits, when they could simply scrap the cap, we predict that this midterm will seem like a walk in the park compared to what awaits them in 2012.
Take Action
Also, sign this petition from Campaign for America's Future and CREDO Action, Tell Obama: Reject Social Security Cuts
(This post originally appeared at Open Left. Also see Angry Bear: BW on Soc Sec V: What does Lenin have to do with this?)