Friday, November 9, 2007
Fort Worth Fire Fighters win HUGE on November 6th
Election day has passed and most did not even know it came and went with the low voter turn out here in Texas. That is if you did not live in some of the big cities with more on the ballot than constitution additions. The Fort Worth, Texas Fire Fighter took a huge step forward with winning collective bargaining rights. The right will be similar to the Postal Workers in that the Fire Fighters will not be able to strike but they will be able to sit down and negotiate benefits, time off, pensions and worker safety. One individual told me that pay was not a question but that they were fighting for insurance for retired Fire Fighters along with pension eligibility after 20 years of service. TC Gillespie of the CWA along with the other members of the Fort Worth Central Labor Council worked hard to get out the vote and now Fort Worth becomes the 22nd city in Texas to have collective bargaining with all or certain sectors of the public workforce. This is huge in looking at the landscape of the Labor Movement in Texas once thought to be a drain on the the national Labor Movement. This goes to show that not only does Labor have a voice in Texas but it can shape the politics of Texas. Congratulations to all that worked so hard to get this achieved and good luck to the Fire Fighters in their future negotiations.
Build it right-Build it Union!!!
This article below comes from Richard with the Union Review. Those of you in the "Trades" should be able to indentify with what he has to say. Of course, all of us in Labor better wake up.
The other day I posted a rant to Union Review called Build it Right - Build it Union. The story went up after a little frustration on my part hearing about different news items taking place around the labor world in the United States coupled with a few workers from different trades telling me that they would be more active in their union movement if they knew how or what to do. The article is a simple piece with links to other stories that we covered at the site -- and it is basically just highlighting a few companies out there that want union money but not union workers. There is an issue with Rite Aid, which is now being discussed at this site, and another with Walgreens -- both of which build nonunion and then reach out to union workers to spend their money with them since they will accept most health plans. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. Whether it is FedEx, these pharmacies, or Red Wing shoes ... there are endless groups out there who are not building union and who are getting richer with our hard-earned cash. In an effort to spread some news while simultaneously helping people get more active in the union movement, if they choose to do so, I suggested that we start Buying Right - Buying Union. I mentioned a few places that we should do our business with and opened it up for others to help out by sharing with us what companies we should avoid and others that we should not. I welcome the readers here to participate in this as well. Feel free to comment here and/or post at Union Review. If you don't want your comments cross-posted to Union Review, just let me know -- the main thing is to get people active on something that we can all do ... now. In Solidarity, -Richard / UR
The other day I posted a rant to Union Review called Build it Right - Build it Union. The story went up after a little frustration on my part hearing about different news items taking place around the labor world in the United States coupled with a few workers from different trades telling me that they would be more active in their union movement if they knew how or what to do. The article is a simple piece with links to other stories that we covered at the site -- and it is basically just highlighting a few companies out there that want union money but not union workers. There is an issue with Rite Aid, which is now being discussed at this site, and another with Walgreens -- both of which build nonunion and then reach out to union workers to spend their money with them since they will accept most health plans. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. Whether it is FedEx, these pharmacies, or Red Wing shoes ... there are endless groups out there who are not building union and who are getting richer with our hard-earned cash. In an effort to spread some news while simultaneously helping people get more active in the union movement, if they choose to do so, I suggested that we start Buying Right - Buying Union. I mentioned a few places that we should do our business with and opened it up for others to help out by sharing with us what companies we should avoid and others that we should not. I welcome the readers here to participate in this as well. Feel free to comment here and/or post at Union Review. If you don't want your comments cross-posted to Union Review, just let me know -- the main thing is to get people active on something that we can all do ... now. In Solidarity, -Richard / UR
Peru "Free Trade" Deal By John Tasani
It wasn't a surprise but it is still disappointing that the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru passed the House yesterday--and, unfortunately, with too many Democrats voting for the deal. We missed a teachable moment--a moment to reframe the debate on trade relations with other countries. Here's what the Democratic Party should be saying.
Actually, mainly in the House, we had been moving in the right direction on opposition to so-called "free trade." Fewer and fewer Democrats have been voting for these agreements (for example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement received only 15 Democratic votes in the House). And as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach points out, 117 Democrats voted against the Peru deal:
Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.
That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.
In particular, freshman Democrats voted against the deal, having won their elections partly due to campaign messages that included opposition to so-called "free trade." A drum roll and applause for:
Arcuri (NY)
Altmire (PA)
Boyda (KS)
Carney (PA)
Cohen (TN)
Courtney (CT)
Donnelley (IN)
Ellison (MN)
Hall (NY)
Hare (IL)
Hirono (HI)
Hodes (NH)
Johnson, Hank (GA)
Kagen (WI)
Loebsack (IA)
McNerney (CA)
Murphy C. (CT)
Murphy P. (PA)
Richardson (CA)
Rodriguez (TX)
Sarbanes (MD)
Shea-Porter (NH)
Shuler (NC)
Space (OH)
Sutton (OH)
Tsongas (MA)
Walz (MN)
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Yarmouth (KY)
On the other hand, 11 freshman voted for the deal:
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Ellsworth (IN)
Gillibrand (NY)
Hill, B. (IN)
Klein (FL)
Lampson (TX)
Mahoney (FL)
Mitchell (AZ)
Perlmutter (CO)
Sestak (PA)
As a New Yorker, I can't resist one passing observation: why Yvette Clarke, who represents some of the poorest people in Brooklyn, would vote for this deal, which will do nothing for her constituents, is beyond me--unless this is some way of her catching some campaign cash down the road and/or currying favor with Speaker Pelosi, who also voted for this deal.
So, why should the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru have gone down to defeat and what should the party be saying about trade? The Democrats who voted for the deal are, in my humble opinion, buying a phony framework for trade. They are being told that the main problem with these deals is that they have not included provisions that address labor and environmental standards. If you look at the narrow frame of the deal--that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements--you can say, "sure, there is some progress." And since the Peru deal did include such provisions, well, then, some Democrats--and the pundit class--argue there is no reason to oppose such an agreement because we have to be open to the world trading system and not become...horror of all horrors...protectionists.
This is a false and politically idiotic frame to accept.
We are not debating "protectionism" versus "free trade." These are just marketing phrases. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." Once you use that phrase and defend yourself as not being a "protectionist," you are just reinforcing that the debate is a struggle between two concepts, which are really figments of the imagination.
A secondary frame that is at play is the seductive notion that there is a totally new world out there thanks to technology and so-called "free trade" is an essential element of the new world--we hear that rap from the pundits, economists, and, unfortunately, even a labor leader or two.
This is also idiotic. There is nothing new about trade. We've traded around the globe for all of human history. Technology does allow information and capital to move more quickly around the world.
What we are debating are the RULES that will govern how goods and services are exchanged between people. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this:
So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.
And what are the rules in the so-called "free trade" agreements?
The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements still, include NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).
These deals still allow companies to attack prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain.
These deals still contain agriculture rules that displace millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, and desperate migration.
These deals still allow food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards.
These deals still allow drug companies to extend patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine.
These deals still let U.S. firms, such as Citibank, demand compensation if, for example, Peru tries to reverse course and end its awful social security privatization.
So, as you can see, the basic structure of the economic system stays in place. What Democrats are left to defend, then, is a vote that changes things around the edges. As I said before, it's not terrible that there are labor and environmental provisions slapped on to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. The problem is that, even if those provisions are enforced, they do not change the basic economic framework being imposed on our citizens and people around the world. And, then, Democrats are left promoting things like retraining--a failed policy--to make up for an economic system that is rapacious.
And, politically, this is just dumb. In the short term, I suppose party leaders see support for so-called "free trade" guaranteeing that campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists will still flow to Democrats. But, that is no guarantee for success.
In 1993, NAFTA passed with the enthusiastic support of Bill Clinton (and, I would point out, Robert Reich, his Secretary of Labor). A year later, Democrats lost the House. Much of the blame for that electoral defeat--which then lead to more than a decade of an unraveling of our basic social compact in America, not to mention the bludgeoning of hundreds of millions of people around the world--was laid at the feat of the failed health care proposal promoted by the Administration.
I would argue that the passage of NAFTA played a crucial role, as well. Many union members were disgusted by the specter of a Democratic president flogging a deeply flawed agreement--and it was known, then, that the deal was deeply flawed--and many of them stayed home in November 1994. A bunch voted for Republicans on non-economic issues. Many of the races lost by Democrats in 1994 were lost by slim margins.
Fast forward to today. Not only did Public Citizen document how many freshman Democrats were elected in 2006 because of their clear opposition to so-called "free trade," but we now know that a majority of REPUBLICANS oppose these bad trade deals.
It is simply insane, morally and politically, to continue to support any vestige of so-called "free trade."
So, to wrap up, what should the frame be? Here is a modest, short version:
Democrats believe that the First Principle of trade should be that it enhances the quality of life of communities here and around the world. Democrats believe that every American should have a job with decent wages and dignity at work. We also believe that our country's role in the world should be to promote strong partnerships with other countries so that we can exchange goods, services, and ideas that raise the living standards of people everywhere. When living standards for people around the globe allow them to provide for their families, then, they are not forced to become economic refugees and move to other countries to survive. Democrats also believe that economic progress is possible without poisoning our air, streams, lakes, food and the rest of our environment.
So, with that in mind, we, then, will work to create trade agreements that cherish those ideas and allow corporations to implement those principles.
It's not hard to figure this out. Do we have the will and the courage to reject corporate campaign cash to make this happen?
Actually, mainly in the House, we had been moving in the right direction on opposition to so-called "free trade." Fewer and fewer Democrats have been voting for these agreements (for example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement received only 15 Democratic votes in the House). And as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach points out, 117 Democrats voted against the Peru deal:
Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.
That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.
In particular, freshman Democrats voted against the deal, having won their elections partly due to campaign messages that included opposition to so-called "free trade." A drum roll and applause for:
Arcuri (NY)
Altmire (PA)
Boyda (KS)
Carney (PA)
Cohen (TN)
Courtney (CT)
Donnelley (IN)
Ellison (MN)
Hall (NY)
Hare (IL)
Hirono (HI)
Hodes (NH)
Johnson, Hank (GA)
Kagen (WI)
Loebsack (IA)
McNerney (CA)
Murphy C. (CT)
Murphy P. (PA)
Richardson (CA)
Rodriguez (TX)
Sarbanes (MD)
Shea-Porter (NH)
Shuler (NC)
Space (OH)
Sutton (OH)
Tsongas (MA)
Walz (MN)
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Yarmouth (KY)
On the other hand, 11 freshman voted for the deal:
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Ellsworth (IN)
Gillibrand (NY)
Hill, B. (IN)
Klein (FL)
Lampson (TX)
Mahoney (FL)
Mitchell (AZ)
Perlmutter (CO)
Sestak (PA)
As a New Yorker, I can't resist one passing observation: why Yvette Clarke, who represents some of the poorest people in Brooklyn, would vote for this deal, which will do nothing for her constituents, is beyond me--unless this is some way of her catching some campaign cash down the road and/or currying favor with Speaker Pelosi, who also voted for this deal.
So, why should the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru have gone down to defeat and what should the party be saying about trade? The Democrats who voted for the deal are, in my humble opinion, buying a phony framework for trade. They are being told that the main problem with these deals is that they have not included provisions that address labor and environmental standards. If you look at the narrow frame of the deal--that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements--you can say, "sure, there is some progress." And since the Peru deal did include such provisions, well, then, some Democrats--and the pundit class--argue there is no reason to oppose such an agreement because we have to be open to the world trading system and not become...horror of all horrors...protectionists.
This is a false and politically idiotic frame to accept.
We are not debating "protectionism" versus "free trade." These are just marketing phrases. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." Once you use that phrase and defend yourself as not being a "protectionist," you are just reinforcing that the debate is a struggle between two concepts, which are really figments of the imagination.
A secondary frame that is at play is the seductive notion that there is a totally new world out there thanks to technology and so-called "free trade" is an essential element of the new world--we hear that rap from the pundits, economists, and, unfortunately, even a labor leader or two.
This is also idiotic. There is nothing new about trade. We've traded around the globe for all of human history. Technology does allow information and capital to move more quickly around the world.
What we are debating are the RULES that will govern how goods and services are exchanged between people. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this:
So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.
And what are the rules in the so-called "free trade" agreements?
The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements still, include NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).
These deals still allow companies to attack prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain.
These deals still contain agriculture rules that displace millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, and desperate migration.
These deals still allow food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards.
These deals still allow drug companies to extend patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine.
These deals still let U.S. firms, such as Citibank, demand compensation if, for example, Peru tries to reverse course and end its awful social security privatization.
So, as you can see, the basic structure of the economic system stays in place. What Democrats are left to defend, then, is a vote that changes things around the edges. As I said before, it's not terrible that there are labor and environmental provisions slapped on to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. The problem is that, even if those provisions are enforced, they do not change the basic economic framework being imposed on our citizens and people around the world. And, then, Democrats are left promoting things like retraining--a failed policy--to make up for an economic system that is rapacious.
And, politically, this is just dumb. In the short term, I suppose party leaders see support for so-called "free trade" guaranteeing that campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists will still flow to Democrats. But, that is no guarantee for success.
In 1993, NAFTA passed with the enthusiastic support of Bill Clinton (and, I would point out, Robert Reich, his Secretary of Labor). A year later, Democrats lost the House. Much of the blame for that electoral defeat--which then lead to more than a decade of an unraveling of our basic social compact in America, not to mention the bludgeoning of hundreds of millions of people around the world--was laid at the feat of the failed health care proposal promoted by the Administration.
I would argue that the passage of NAFTA played a crucial role, as well. Many union members were disgusted by the specter of a Democratic president flogging a deeply flawed agreement--and it was known, then, that the deal was deeply flawed--and many of them stayed home in November 1994. A bunch voted for Republicans on non-economic issues. Many of the races lost by Democrats in 1994 were lost by slim margins.
Fast forward to today. Not only did Public Citizen document how many freshman Democrats were elected in 2006 because of their clear opposition to so-called "free trade," but we now know that a majority of REPUBLICANS oppose these bad trade deals.
It is simply insane, morally and politically, to continue to support any vestige of so-called "free trade."
So, to wrap up, what should the frame be? Here is a modest, short version:
Democrats believe that the First Principle of trade should be that it enhances the quality of life of communities here and around the world. Democrats believe that every American should have a job with decent wages and dignity at work. We also believe that our country's role in the world should be to promote strong partnerships with other countries so that we can exchange goods, services, and ideas that raise the living standards of people everywhere. When living standards for people around the globe allow them to provide for their families, then, they are not forced to become economic refugees and move to other countries to survive. Democrats also believe that economic progress is possible without poisoning our air, streams, lakes, food and the rest of our environment.
So, with that in mind, we, then, will work to create trade agreements that cherish those ideas and allow corporations to implement those principles.
It's not hard to figure this out. Do we have the will and the courage to reject corporate campaign cash to make this happen?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Like Walmart? Read this then ask yourself again.
I have been having issues with Walmart for a long time due to their horrible treatment of their employees as a whole. I have relished seeing them in the news with issues with govermentatl bodies like last year when they were caught violating child labor laws in Conneticut. Now, it appears that we do not only have to work for Walmart to have it put to us. It looks like we get to carry then with our tax dollars because they dodge theirs. John Tasini published the article last week on one of the sites I read to bring you information. I look forward to the comments.
In another world, this might be called a crime--and maybe it is illegal. But, at least, it's pretty sleazy and makes you wonder: why would any state really want Wal-Mart? After all, it generates low-paying jobs that keep workers in poverty--not a great way to build your tax base--and, it turns out, the Beast of Bentonville does everything possible to try to cut its state taxes. The Wall Street Journal today has this:
In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting firms: Find us creative new ways to cut our state tax bills.
Ernst & Young LLP swung into action. Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email and in a series of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst & Young calendar, took place in Wal-Mart's headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room."
Wal-Mart decided to hire Ernst & Young to help devise complex tax strategies to use in at least four big states. The accounting firm, for example, helped Wal-Mart take tax deductions in California for dividends it never actually paid. And in Texas, Ernst & Young advised, the giant retailer could exploit a wrinkle in the tax law involving limited partners from out-of-state -- a maneuver subsequently shut down by the state's legislature.
Wal-Mart isn't the first company to try this gimmick but it was the most aggressive:
Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of transactions pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North Carolina case indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose: cutting its state income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for example, the accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord of 27 potential tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state's tax code. It described one of them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."
Here is how some of the scam worked, using real-estate investment trusts:...split...
Ernst & Young dreamed up a novel way to sidestep combined-reporting requirements in California. It used an unusual type of dividend to transfer income from one subsidiary to another in such a way that the second unit wouldn't be taxed.
Here's how it worked: When REITs pay dividends to their shareholders, they can deduct those payments from their taxable income. The federal government permits REITs to take deductions for dividends before they're actually paid -- a provision intended to give them extra time to make payments. Such dividends are called "consent dividends" because the recipients must consent to record the unpaid dividends as taxable income.
Ernst & Young argued that California law permitted REITs to deduct such consent dividends, but that the state law didn't also require recipients of the consent dividends to count them as taxable income, according to one person who worked on the transactions. The accounting firm proposed a strategy in which the Wal-Mart REIT would claim a tax deduction for paying consent dividends to its parent, but the unit receiving the dividends wouldn't record them as income for tax purposes. The bottom line: Wal-Mart could reduce its taxable income in California by an amount equal to the total consent dividend payments it recorded, thereby cutting its tax bill.
Two years later, California's Franchise Tax Board, the state's income-tax agency, put the strategy on its list of "Abusive Tax Shelters." Wal-Mart's Mr. Bullington said in his deposition that California tax authorities have protested various tax benefits taken by the retailer since 1998. California also is in litigation with a big bank, City National Corp., over a similar strategy.
The thing to know: Wal-Mart has paid roughly half of the average state corporate income tax over the past decade. These guys are truly a shredding machine--sucking out anything they can from a community and leaving it worse for the wear.
In another world, this might be called a crime--and maybe it is illegal. But, at least, it's pretty sleazy and makes you wonder: why would any state really want Wal-Mart? After all, it generates low-paying jobs that keep workers in poverty--not a great way to build your tax base--and, it turns out, the Beast of Bentonville does everything possible to try to cut its state taxes. The Wall Street Journal today has this:
In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting firms: Find us creative new ways to cut our state tax bills.
Ernst & Young LLP swung into action. Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email and in a series of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst & Young calendar, took place in Wal-Mart's headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room."
Wal-Mart decided to hire Ernst & Young to help devise complex tax strategies to use in at least four big states. The accounting firm, for example, helped Wal-Mart take tax deductions in California for dividends it never actually paid. And in Texas, Ernst & Young advised, the giant retailer could exploit a wrinkle in the tax law involving limited partners from out-of-state -- a maneuver subsequently shut down by the state's legislature.
Wal-Mart isn't the first company to try this gimmick but it was the most aggressive:
Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of transactions pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North Carolina case indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose: cutting its state income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for example, the accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord of 27 potential tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state's tax code. It described one of them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."
Here is how some of the scam worked, using real-estate investment trusts:...split...
Ernst & Young dreamed up a novel way to sidestep combined-reporting requirements in California. It used an unusual type of dividend to transfer income from one subsidiary to another in such a way that the second unit wouldn't be taxed.
Here's how it worked: When REITs pay dividends to their shareholders, they can deduct those payments from their taxable income. The federal government permits REITs to take deductions for dividends before they're actually paid -- a provision intended to give them extra time to make payments. Such dividends are called "consent dividends" because the recipients must consent to record the unpaid dividends as taxable income.
Ernst & Young argued that California law permitted REITs to deduct such consent dividends, but that the state law didn't also require recipients of the consent dividends to count them as taxable income, according to one person who worked on the transactions. The accounting firm proposed a strategy in which the Wal-Mart REIT would claim a tax deduction for paying consent dividends to its parent, but the unit receiving the dividends wouldn't record them as income for tax purposes. The bottom line: Wal-Mart could reduce its taxable income in California by an amount equal to the total consent dividend payments it recorded, thereby cutting its tax bill.
Two years later, California's Franchise Tax Board, the state's income-tax agency, put the strategy on its list of "Abusive Tax Shelters." Wal-Mart's Mr. Bullington said in his deposition that California tax authorities have protested various tax benefits taken by the retailer since 1998. California also is in litigation with a big bank, City National Corp., over a similar strategy.
The thing to know: Wal-Mart has paid roughly half of the average state corporate income tax over the past decade. These guys are truly a shredding machine--sucking out anything they can from a community and leaving it worse for the wear.
John Edwards Opposes Peru So-Called "Free Trade" Deal by Jonathan Tasini
Aside from the Iraq war, nothing is more important in this election than where the next president will stand on how the rules will be set in the economy, particularly when it comes to trade. There is no greater threat to average Americans--a greater threat than the budget deficit, or the admittedly awful sub-prime mortgage scandal--than the imposition of so-called "free trade" regimes on our workers and workers around the world. Over the weekend, John Edwards took another step towards cementing his opposition to so-called "free trade."
On Saturday, he announced his opposition to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru:
"Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.
"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close – and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.
"NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn’t served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too – average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.
Pay attention, in particular, to Edwards' description of NAFTA: NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well.
On Saturday, he announced his opposition to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru:
"Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.
"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close – and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.
"NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn’t served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too – average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.
Pay attention, in particular, to Edwards' description of NAFTA: NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Labor Board charges Verizon Business illegally interfered with employees' freedom to form a union by Rand Wilson
Management tactics included making illegal threats, intimidation and surveillance of union supporters
In two separate cases, the National Labor Relations Board issued formal complaints against Verizon Business (VZB) for violating federal labor laws by spying on workers, suppressing free speech in the workplace and issuing illegal warnings to union supporters.
The complaints were issued by the Region 2 (NY) and Region 6 (PA) offices of the NLRB on August 30. The complaints were made after an investigation of charges filed by workers in Verizon Business' Monsey, NY and Pittsburgh, PA facilities earlier this year.The Board's complaints allege that Verizon management:
· "...selectively and disparately prohibited union solicitations and distributions, while permitting nonunion solicitations and distributions."· "...engaged in surveillance of employees to discourage their union activities. [And] created an impression amongst its employees that their union activities were under surveillance."· illegally warned two VZB techs for supporting the union.· illegally "informed the employees that they were not to discuss the union at work."· illegally "threatened employees with layoff for supporting the union"· illegally gave two oral warnings and one written warning to three pro-union VZB techs.
"Verizon technicians want to have the same job protections and rights that so-called "core" Verizon employees have. Instead management has subjected us to its propaganda machine and interfering with our rights on the job. Top management should recognize our union and begin bargaining for the good jobs and respect we all deserve," said Dave Rogol, a Senior Technician at Verizon Business who works at its Charlton, MA facility.
"It's about time this company got slapped for intimidating VZB techs from making a free and fair choice," said Chris Shelton, Vice President of CWA District One, which includes more than 26,000 Verizon members throughout the Northeast. "Now Verizon should honor the neutrality and union recognition procedure that so many other Verizon employees have benefited from."
The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or engaging in protected concerted activities to improve wages and working conditions.
NLRB hearings by an Administrative Law Judge on the Pittsburgh complaint are planned for October 31. Separate hearings on the Monsey, NY case are set for November 5 in New York City. For copies of the NLRB complaints, contact Rand Wilson by email at rwilson@aflcio.org. For more info about the technicians organizing campaign, visit www.freechoiceatverizon.com.
In two separate cases, the National Labor Relations Board issued formal complaints against Verizon Business (VZB) for violating federal labor laws by spying on workers, suppressing free speech in the workplace and issuing illegal warnings to union supporters.
The complaints were issued by the Region 2 (NY) and Region 6 (PA) offices of the NLRB on August 30. The complaints were made after an investigation of charges filed by workers in Verizon Business' Monsey, NY and Pittsburgh, PA facilities earlier this year.The Board's complaints allege that Verizon management:
· "...selectively and disparately prohibited union solicitations and distributions, while permitting nonunion solicitations and distributions."· "...engaged in surveillance of employees to discourage their union activities. [And] created an impression amongst its employees that their union activities were under surveillance."· illegally warned two VZB techs for supporting the union.· illegally "informed the employees that they were not to discuss the union at work."· illegally "threatened employees with layoff for supporting the union"· illegally gave two oral warnings and one written warning to three pro-union VZB techs.
"Verizon technicians want to have the same job protections and rights that so-called "core" Verizon employees have. Instead management has subjected us to its propaganda machine and interfering with our rights on the job. Top management should recognize our union and begin bargaining for the good jobs and respect we all deserve," said Dave Rogol, a Senior Technician at Verizon Business who works at its Charlton, MA facility.
"It's about time this company got slapped for intimidating VZB techs from making a free and fair choice," said Chris Shelton, Vice President of CWA District One, which includes more than 26,000 Verizon members throughout the Northeast. "Now Verizon should honor the neutrality and union recognition procedure that so many other Verizon employees have benefited from."
The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or engaging in protected concerted activities to improve wages and working conditions.
NLRB hearings by an Administrative Law Judge on the Pittsburgh complaint are planned for October 31. Separate hearings on the Monsey, NY case are set for November 5 in New York City. For copies of the NLRB complaints, contact Rand Wilson by email at rwilson@aflcio.org. For more info about the technicians organizing campaign, visit www.freechoiceatverizon.com.
An NLRB Case To Watch by Ellen Dannin
On November 9, the NLRB will be holding oral arguments in a case that is likely to be overlooked but that raises critical issues. The case is New York New York Hotel, LLC, d/b/a New York New York Hotel and Casino.The key issue in the case comes down to who is an employee. That issue matters to the parties in the case, but the decision has the potential to limit or expand rights to organize. I personally considered the case important enough to file an amicus brief.You can find the orders in this case and the parties' briefs at this link. The amicus briefs, which had to be filed by October 2 should be posted soon. The Board puts the issues this way:
The issues presented in the case include whether Ark Las Vegas Restaurant Corporation’s employees, who are employed by Arkon the premises of the New York New York Hotel and Casino, have a statutory right to distribute handbills at various places on hotel property during the employees’ off-duty hours. The handbills were aimed at guests and customers and protested Ark’s nonunion status and wages.
If the Ark employees are found to have employee status, then they have a protected right to distribute handbills and to try to enlist guests and customers to support their union organizing campaign. If they do not have employee status, they can be forbidden to take any of these actions and fired if they do.The definition of who is an employee is of critical importance in all workplace laws. It defines who is protected by the law. The courts have particular trouble with the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act, because when Congress enacted the law it decided to overrule the common law definition. Under the common law, an employee is someone who is employed by an employer. Under the NLRA, an employee is someone who is an employee, regardless of who the employer is.
§ 2(3) of the NLRA states: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise . . ..”Congress used this language so employees could ask other employees to help them organize. In other words, the actions of the Ark employees are exactly what Congress intended to happen and to be legal and protected.Despite this, the courts tend to interpret "employee" as if the NLRA had never been enacted. Courts and the NLRB are supposed to interpret the law with Congress intent in mind. They are supposed to interpret the law so it promotes the policies of the law. In the case of the NLRA, its stated policies are to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, to protect freedom of association, to promote equality of bargaining power. You will rarely see the courts or the NLRB refer to these purposes. If they did, they could not hand down decisions that undermine these rights.I filed an amicus brief in the case to remind the Board and the courts of Congress' intent. I looked at the Legislative History of the NLRA, that is the debates, statements, testimony, and drafts of the legislation from the time the bill was introduced until the NLRA became law.While the brief was not long as briefs go, it is too long to reproduce here. I will, however include some of what I wrote.Excerpts from my brief:In 1941, the Supreme Court recognized the breadth of this definition [of employee] as necessary to [the NLRA's] operation. The Court said that a more limited definition would
confine the “policies of this Act” to the correction of private injuries. The Board was not devised for such a limited function. It is the agency of Congress for translating into concreteness the purpose of safeguarding and encouraging the right of self-organization. The Board, we have held very recently, does not exist for the "adjudication of private rights"; it "acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by encouraging collective bargaining." Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 192-93 (1941).The Court continued, saying that the central purpose of the Act was directed “toward the achievement and maintenance of workers' self-organization.” Id. at 193. In 1947, the Board cited Phelps Dodge in its assertion that employee, as defined by the NLRA, “is broad enough to include members of the working class generally” and that to limit protection “only to employees of a particular employer, would permit employers to discriminate with impunity against other members of the working class, and would serve as a powerful deterrent against free recourse to Board processes.” Briggs Manufacturing Co., 75 N.L.R.B. 569, 570-71 (1947). This broad definition promotes the Act’s broad policy endorsement of freedom of association in § 1, as well as the inclusion of mutual aid or protection among the rights of employees listed in § 7. Furthermore, in § 2(9), Congress reiterated the position that the NLRA was to provide broad coverage to anyone in the class of employee, without consideration of who is the employer of that employee:
The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. [emphasis added]. The Supreme Court in Phelps Dodge recognized Congress’ intent to define employee broadly and to link between §§ 2(3) and (9):
To circumscribe the general class, “employees,” we must find authority either in the policy of the Act or in some specific delimiting provision of it. . . . The problem of what workers were to be covered by legal remedies for assuring the right of self-organization was a familiar one when Congress formulated the Act. The policy which it expressed in defining "employee" both affirmatively and negatively, as it did in § 2 (3), had behind it important practical and judicial experience. “The term ‘employee’,” the section reads, “shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise. . . .” This was not fortuitous phrasing. It had reference to the controversies engendered by constructions placed upon the Clayton Act and kindred state legislation in relation to the functions of workers' organizations and the desire not to repeat those controversies. Cf. New Negro Alliance v. Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552. The broad definition of "employee,” “unless the Act explicitly states otherwise,” as well as the definition of “labor dispute” in § 2 (9), expressed the conviction of Congress “that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self-organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employer.” H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; see also S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 6, 7.313 U.S. at 192-93. Congress was concerned that if employees, broadly defined, could not make common cause with other employees regardless of employer, then the rights the NLRA was enacted to provide and the purposes the NLRA was to promote would be weakened and even destroyed. . . . The source of employees’ legitimate rights is the National Labor Relations Act. Later amendments have not changed the critical language in either § 2(3) or § 2(9).. . . There was strong opposition to language of this breadth:
Mr. Blanton: You will note that under the special heading in the bill, “Rights of employees”, it is provided that they may “engage in concerted activities for mutual aid”, and this is not restricted to an employer’s own employees, but labor agitators from anywhere may thrust themselves into a man’s business and interfere with his employees and try to get them dissatisfied and demand that they unionize against their will , because the bill, in defining “employee”, uses this language on page 5, to wit: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer.”Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 3157. Despite these and other objections, Congress concluded that in order to protect the rights created by the new law the definition of employee must embrace all employees and not be tied to an employment relationship. In its analysis of the bill, the Senate foresaw that situations were likely to arise that would bring employees into an economic relationship with employers who were not their direct employers and drafted language to give the government jurisdiction over those more complex relationships:
The term “employee” is not limited to the employees of a particular employers. The reasons for this are as follows: Under modern conditions employees at times organize along craft or industrial lines and form labor organizations that extend beyond the limits of a single employer unit. These organizations at times make agreements or bargain collectively with employers, or with an association of employers. Through such business dealings, employees are at times brought into an economic relationship with employers who are not their employers. In the course of this relationship, controversies involving unfair labor practice may arise. If this bill did not permit the Government to exercise complete jurisdiction over such controversies (arising from unfair labor practices), the Government would be rendered partially powerless, and could not act to promote peace in those very wide-spread controversies where the establishment of peace is most essential to the public welfare.. . .Sen Report No. 573 on S.1958, Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2305. The House agreed:
These definitions are for the most part self-explanatory. The committee wishes to emphasize the need for the recognition as expressed in subsections 3 and 9, that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employers. This is so plain as to require no great elaboration.
. . .[quoting American Steel Foundries] To render this combination at all effective, employees must make their combination extend beyond one shop. It is helpful to have as many as may be in the same trade in the community united because in the competition between employers they are, bound to be affected by the standard of wages of their trade in the neighborhood. Therefore, they may use all lawful propaganda to enlarge their membership and especially among those whose labor at lower wages will injure their whole guild. This statement is a sufficient answer to those who, with questionable disinterestedness, proclaim that rugged individualism is the great boon of the American workman; or that there is something “unAmerican” in a movement by workers to pool their economic strength in a type of labor organization most effective in approximating the economic power of their employers, namely, in so-called “outside unions”, thereby establishing that ‘equality of position between the parties in which liberty of contract begins.” While the bill does not require organization along such lines, and indeed makes no distinction between such organizations and others limited by the free choice of the workers to the boundaries of a particular plant or employer, it is imperative that employees be permitted so to organize, and that unfair labor practices taking in workers and labor organizations beyond the scope of a single be regarded as within the purview of the bill.House Report (May 20, 1935 ), Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2917-18; 3056-57; see also id. at 1296.. . . Congressman Boland on February 20, 1935, included the following explanation for the expansive definitions and included discussions of similar language in the NRA § 7(a):
The ideas underlying this section are very simple. The worker is treated as a free person. He is accorded the right to associate with fellow workers, to join or refrain from joining any labor organization. He is protected from acts of aggression of his employer. His helplessness as an individual in bargaining with his employer is recognized. This section seeks to equalize the bargaining power of employers and employees by permitting the latter to pool their strength, for theoretical freedom of contract can exist only between equals. The statute recognizes the evils resulting from the present inequalities of bargaining power and proposes as a legislative remedy a regime of collective bargaining. Having permitted industry to unite through merger and consolidation into powerful corporate units, and having encouraged business to form trade associations covering entire industries, Congress sought to effect an economic balance through collective bargaining and the free association of workers in labor organizations. Only in this way could workers achieve even a meager sense of security. . . . I am not taking the position that section 7(a) does not take us into new territory; my analysis will show the contrary. I am, however, seeking to show that section 7(a) was the orderly and logical culmination of the efforts on the part of the Federal Government to free the laboring man from the restrictions imposed by employers and to afford same the opportunity to associate freely with his fellow workers for the betterment of working conditions and the improvement of his status in our economic system.Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2430-31 (discussing NRA § 7(a)).. . .Discussion In this case, the Board and Court of Appeals ask whether the definition of employee and thus the protections of the NLRA can apply to several common situations outside that of the common law relationship of employer-employee. Does the employee of a company’s subcontrator have the rights of an employee under the NLRA? Can employee include employees not on their work shift? When an employee asks bystanders and passers-by to support their struggle for better wages and for union representation, is the employee engaged in concerted activities that are protected by the act? In other words, are those bystanders and passers-by NLRA employees? The common law would likely say “No” to most of these questions. However, as discussed above, Congress decided that the answer must be: “Yes.”. . .Ellen Dannin is Professor of Law at Penn State - Dickinson School of Law and author of Taking Back the Workers' Law - How to Fight the Assault on Labor Rights (Cornell University Press 2006).
The issues presented in the case include whether Ark Las Vegas Restaurant Corporation’s employees, who are employed by Arkon the premises of the New York New York Hotel and Casino, have a statutory right to distribute handbills at various places on hotel property during the employees’ off-duty hours. The handbills were aimed at guests and customers and protested Ark’s nonunion status and wages.
If the Ark employees are found to have employee status, then they have a protected right to distribute handbills and to try to enlist guests and customers to support their union organizing campaign. If they do not have employee status, they can be forbidden to take any of these actions and fired if they do.The definition of who is an employee is of critical importance in all workplace laws. It defines who is protected by the law. The courts have particular trouble with the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act, because when Congress enacted the law it decided to overrule the common law definition. Under the common law, an employee is someone who is employed by an employer. Under the NLRA, an employee is someone who is an employee, regardless of who the employer is.
§ 2(3) of the NLRA states: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise . . ..”Congress used this language so employees could ask other employees to help them organize. In other words, the actions of the Ark employees are exactly what Congress intended to happen and to be legal and protected.Despite this, the courts tend to interpret "employee" as if the NLRA had never been enacted. Courts and the NLRB are supposed to interpret the law with Congress intent in mind. They are supposed to interpret the law so it promotes the policies of the law. In the case of the NLRA, its stated policies are to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, to protect freedom of association, to promote equality of bargaining power. You will rarely see the courts or the NLRB refer to these purposes. If they did, they could not hand down decisions that undermine these rights.I filed an amicus brief in the case to remind the Board and the courts of Congress' intent. I looked at the Legislative History of the NLRA, that is the debates, statements, testimony, and drafts of the legislation from the time the bill was introduced until the NLRA became law.While the brief was not long as briefs go, it is too long to reproduce here. I will, however include some of what I wrote.Excerpts from my brief:In 1941, the Supreme Court recognized the breadth of this definition [of employee] as necessary to [the NLRA's] operation. The Court said that a more limited definition would
confine the “policies of this Act” to the correction of private injuries. The Board was not devised for such a limited function. It is the agency of Congress for translating into concreteness the purpose of safeguarding and encouraging the right of self-organization. The Board, we have held very recently, does not exist for the "adjudication of private rights"; it "acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by encouraging collective bargaining." Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 192-93 (1941).The Court continued, saying that the central purpose of the Act was directed “toward the achievement and maintenance of workers' self-organization.” Id. at 193. In 1947, the Board cited Phelps Dodge in its assertion that employee, as defined by the NLRA, “is broad enough to include members of the working class generally” and that to limit protection “only to employees of a particular employer, would permit employers to discriminate with impunity against other members of the working class, and would serve as a powerful deterrent against free recourse to Board processes.” Briggs Manufacturing Co., 75 N.L.R.B. 569, 570-71 (1947). This broad definition promotes the Act’s broad policy endorsement of freedom of association in § 1, as well as the inclusion of mutual aid or protection among the rights of employees listed in § 7. Furthermore, in § 2(9), Congress reiterated the position that the NLRA was to provide broad coverage to anyone in the class of employee, without consideration of who is the employer of that employee:
The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. [emphasis added]. The Supreme Court in Phelps Dodge recognized Congress’ intent to define employee broadly and to link between §§ 2(3) and (9):
To circumscribe the general class, “employees,” we must find authority either in the policy of the Act or in some specific delimiting provision of it. . . . The problem of what workers were to be covered by legal remedies for assuring the right of self-organization was a familiar one when Congress formulated the Act. The policy which it expressed in defining "employee" both affirmatively and negatively, as it did in § 2 (3), had behind it important practical and judicial experience. “The term ‘employee’,” the section reads, “shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise. . . .” This was not fortuitous phrasing. It had reference to the controversies engendered by constructions placed upon the Clayton Act and kindred state legislation in relation to the functions of workers' organizations and the desire not to repeat those controversies. Cf. New Negro Alliance v. Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552. The broad definition of "employee,” “unless the Act explicitly states otherwise,” as well as the definition of “labor dispute” in § 2 (9), expressed the conviction of Congress “that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self-organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employer.” H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; see also S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 6, 7.313 U.S. at 192-93. Congress was concerned that if employees, broadly defined, could not make common cause with other employees regardless of employer, then the rights the NLRA was enacted to provide and the purposes the NLRA was to promote would be weakened and even destroyed. . . . The source of employees’ legitimate rights is the National Labor Relations Act. Later amendments have not changed the critical language in either § 2(3) or § 2(9).. . . There was strong opposition to language of this breadth:
Mr. Blanton: You will note that under the special heading in the bill, “Rights of employees”, it is provided that they may “engage in concerted activities for mutual aid”, and this is not restricted to an employer’s own employees, but labor agitators from anywhere may thrust themselves into a man’s business and interfere with his employees and try to get them dissatisfied and demand that they unionize against their will , because the bill, in defining “employee”, uses this language on page 5, to wit: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer.”Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 3157. Despite these and other objections, Congress concluded that in order to protect the rights created by the new law the definition of employee must embrace all employees and not be tied to an employment relationship. In its analysis of the bill, the Senate foresaw that situations were likely to arise that would bring employees into an economic relationship with employers who were not their direct employers and drafted language to give the government jurisdiction over those more complex relationships:
The term “employee” is not limited to the employees of a particular employers. The reasons for this are as follows: Under modern conditions employees at times organize along craft or industrial lines and form labor organizations that extend beyond the limits of a single employer unit. These organizations at times make agreements or bargain collectively with employers, or with an association of employers. Through such business dealings, employees are at times brought into an economic relationship with employers who are not their employers. In the course of this relationship, controversies involving unfair labor practice may arise. If this bill did not permit the Government to exercise complete jurisdiction over such controversies (arising from unfair labor practices), the Government would be rendered partially powerless, and could not act to promote peace in those very wide-spread controversies where the establishment of peace is most essential to the public welfare.. . .Sen Report No. 573 on S.1958, Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2305. The House agreed:
These definitions are for the most part self-explanatory. The committee wishes to emphasize the need for the recognition as expressed in subsections 3 and 9, that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employers. This is so plain as to require no great elaboration.
. . .[quoting American Steel Foundries] To render this combination at all effective, employees must make their combination extend beyond one shop. It is helpful to have as many as may be in the same trade in the community united because in the competition between employers they are, bound to be affected by the standard of wages of their trade in the neighborhood. Therefore, they may use all lawful propaganda to enlarge their membership and especially among those whose labor at lower wages will injure their whole guild. This statement is a sufficient answer to those who, with questionable disinterestedness, proclaim that rugged individualism is the great boon of the American workman; or that there is something “unAmerican” in a movement by workers to pool their economic strength in a type of labor organization most effective in approximating the economic power of their employers, namely, in so-called “outside unions”, thereby establishing that ‘equality of position between the parties in which liberty of contract begins.” While the bill does not require organization along such lines, and indeed makes no distinction between such organizations and others limited by the free choice of the workers to the boundaries of a particular plant or employer, it is imperative that employees be permitted so to organize, and that unfair labor practices taking in workers and labor organizations beyond the scope of a single be regarded as within the purview of the bill.House Report (May 20, 1935 ), Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2917-18; 3056-57; see also id. at 1296.. . . Congressman Boland on February 20, 1935, included the following explanation for the expansive definitions and included discussions of similar language in the NRA § 7(a):
The ideas underlying this section are very simple. The worker is treated as a free person. He is accorded the right to associate with fellow workers, to join or refrain from joining any labor organization. He is protected from acts of aggression of his employer. His helplessness as an individual in bargaining with his employer is recognized. This section seeks to equalize the bargaining power of employers and employees by permitting the latter to pool their strength, for theoretical freedom of contract can exist only between equals. The statute recognizes the evils resulting from the present inequalities of bargaining power and proposes as a legislative remedy a regime of collective bargaining. Having permitted industry to unite through merger and consolidation into powerful corporate units, and having encouraged business to form trade associations covering entire industries, Congress sought to effect an economic balance through collective bargaining and the free association of workers in labor organizations. Only in this way could workers achieve even a meager sense of security. . . . I am not taking the position that section 7(a) does not take us into new territory; my analysis will show the contrary. I am, however, seeking to show that section 7(a) was the orderly and logical culmination of the efforts on the part of the Federal Government to free the laboring man from the restrictions imposed by employers and to afford same the opportunity to associate freely with his fellow workers for the betterment of working conditions and the improvement of his status in our economic system.Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2430-31 (discussing NRA § 7(a)).. . .Discussion In this case, the Board and Court of Appeals ask whether the definition of employee and thus the protections of the NLRA can apply to several common situations outside that of the common law relationship of employer-employee. Does the employee of a company’s subcontrator have the rights of an employee under the NLRA? Can employee include employees not on their work shift? When an employee asks bystanders and passers-by to support their struggle for better wages and for union representation, is the employee engaged in concerted activities that are protected by the act? In other words, are those bystanders and passers-by NLRA employees? The common law would likely say “No” to most of these questions. However, as discussed above, Congress decided that the answer must be: “Yes.”. . .Ellen Dannin is Professor of Law at Penn State - Dickinson School of Law and author of Taking Back the Workers' Law - How to Fight the Assault on Labor Rights (Cornell University Press 2006).
UAW-Auto Deals: an Argument for Single Payer Health Care by Jonathan Tasini
Last week, I took part in a discussion on CNBC about the agreement reached between the UAW and Chrysler. The show’s producers wanted to focus on the question of whether the deal showed that the UAW’s power is in decline. The truth is that the Chrysler deal, and the previous pact reached between the UAW and GM, should be about one thing—why we need single-payer health care.
No one argues that the U.S. unionized auto industry is having significant troubles (I underscore "unionized" because the auto industry is doing just fine—if you look at the low-wage, non-union side). But, it’s amazing that given the numbers thrown around on health care during the negotiations, it did not evoke a collective shout "the solution is obvious." General Motors agreed to pay the UAW $35 billion to shift the cost of its retiree health care liabilities to a voluntary employee benefits association or VEBA, which will be managed by the union; the Chrysler deal will probably mean that that company throws in roughly $10 billion to the VEBA. Ford is yet to cut a deal.
That is the largest transfer of money to be agreed to in one deal from capital to labor in history—so much for the irrelevance of the UAW. But, obviously, there is a risk that, given the insanity of the health care system, that that money won’t last—if the current system is not radically changed.
I have long maintained that the auto industry is the perfect argument for single-payer. That wasn't rocket science since health care costs alone added $1,200 or more to the cost of a car produced here by an American auto company.
But, the media continues to ignore this fact. Instead, the media, not to mention a whole raft of pundits and politicians, are choosing ideology over clear economics-—to the detriment of workers and the companies they work for.
Here’s one other positive aspect of the GM deal: the company agreed to thrown in $15 million to set-up an institute to focus on changing America’s health care system. Once that institute is set-up (and presumably it will also have contributions from Chrysler and Ford), we need to make sure it is staffed by people who will put the welfare of the people, before the profits of the for-profit health care industry.
No one argues that the U.S. unionized auto industry is having significant troubles (I underscore "unionized" because the auto industry is doing just fine—if you look at the low-wage, non-union side). But, it’s amazing that given the numbers thrown around on health care during the negotiations, it did not evoke a collective shout "the solution is obvious." General Motors agreed to pay the UAW $35 billion to shift the cost of its retiree health care liabilities to a voluntary employee benefits association or VEBA, which will be managed by the union; the Chrysler deal will probably mean that that company throws in roughly $10 billion to the VEBA. Ford is yet to cut a deal.
That is the largest transfer of money to be agreed to in one deal from capital to labor in history—so much for the irrelevance of the UAW. But, obviously, there is a risk that, given the insanity of the health care system, that that money won’t last—if the current system is not radically changed.
I have long maintained that the auto industry is the perfect argument for single-payer. That wasn't rocket science since health care costs alone added $1,200 or more to the cost of a car produced here by an American auto company.
But, the media continues to ignore this fact. Instead, the media, not to mention a whole raft of pundits and politicians, are choosing ideology over clear economics-—to the detriment of workers and the companies they work for.
Here’s one other positive aspect of the GM deal: the company agreed to thrown in $15 million to set-up an institute to focus on changing America’s health care system. Once that institute is set-up (and presumably it will also have contributions from Chrysler and Ford), we need to make sure it is staffed by people who will put the welfare of the people, before the profits of the for-profit health care industry.
The Collapse of Defined Benefit Pensions by Jonathan Tasini
We just had an amazing panel here on the crisis in retirement security (if you missed it...you had your chance...make sure you get to our future events!). Bruce Raynor, general president of UNITE-HERE, gave some very clear examples of how defined benefit pensions are crucial to his members' retirement, pointing out that pensions bind workers to unions for their entire lifetime in a moral and political way. Damon Silvers, associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, had these facts to relate:
Only 21 percent of private sector workers have a defined benefit pension plan, 29 percent have only a defined contribution plan, 50 percent have nothing.
The median 401-k plan balance in 2003 was $18,000, the average was only $51,000. Remember, the average will be pulled up because the top ten percent of income earners have the ability to put in the extra $10-$15,000 at the end of the year, while most wage earners are deeply in debt. Translation: if you've got a 401-k, you are screwed.
Median 401-k account balances for workers between 55 and 64 was $61,000 as of 2004. Translation: if you are headed for retirement, you are in trouble.
If current trends continue, we are heading into a period when income for retired Americans falls for the first time since the Depression, just when retired Americans are becoming demographically and economically dominant. This is not a pretty picture. Tom Wotring, who represents employers in pension fund issues and is a trustee on the Upstate New York Teamsters Fund and the New England Teamsters Fund, the third and fourth largest Teamsters pension funds in the country, pointed out that defined benefit pension plans are more efficient than defined contribution plans, get higher rates of return and are a stronger attraction to workers. Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor from Tax Notes and a nationally recognized expert on the tax code issue related to pensions, explained the scandal of so-called "non-qualified plans": the pensions of CEOs that sit outside the reach of ERISA. So, why do we face a dismal picture on retirement? The same reason we face a general decline in the economic security for most Americans: the labor movement is weak, employers simply see retirement as a drag on earnings and costs that can be done away with, and we don't have political leadership willing to be aggressive about advocating for real MANDATED retirement benefits. Fact to remember: in Australia, a national retirement system mandates a 9 percent employer contribution.
Only 21 percent of private sector workers have a defined benefit pension plan, 29 percent have only a defined contribution plan, 50 percent have nothing.
The median 401-k plan balance in 2003 was $18,000, the average was only $51,000. Remember, the average will be pulled up because the top ten percent of income earners have the ability to put in the extra $10-$15,000 at the end of the year, while most wage earners are deeply in debt. Translation: if you've got a 401-k, you are screwed.
Median 401-k account balances for workers between 55 and 64 was $61,000 as of 2004. Translation: if you are headed for retirement, you are in trouble.
If current trends continue, we are heading into a period when income for retired Americans falls for the first time since the Depression, just when retired Americans are becoming demographically and economically dominant. This is not a pretty picture. Tom Wotring, who represents employers in pension fund issues and is a trustee on the Upstate New York Teamsters Fund and the New England Teamsters Fund, the third and fourth largest Teamsters pension funds in the country, pointed out that defined benefit pension plans are more efficient than defined contribution plans, get higher rates of return and are a stronger attraction to workers. Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor from Tax Notes and a nationally recognized expert on the tax code issue related to pensions, explained the scandal of so-called "non-qualified plans": the pensions of CEOs that sit outside the reach of ERISA. So, why do we face a dismal picture on retirement? The same reason we face a general decline in the economic security for most Americans: the labor movement is weak, employers simply see retirement as a drag on earnings and costs that can be done away with, and we don't have political leadership willing to be aggressive about advocating for real MANDATED retirement benefits. Fact to remember: in Australia, a national retirement system mandates a 9 percent employer contribution.
Breaking Through the Noise: Reaching Overwhelmed Voters (July 11, 2005) by Grant Perry from the Labor Research Association
If you lived in Toledo last fall, it got to the point where you just couldn't take it anymore. Too many TV ads, too much mail, too many phone calls. I'm referring to political communications — politicians and groups trying to win votes. Between March and late September of 2004 — even before the busy last month of the presidential campaign — Toledo voters were subjected to 14,273 television ads on the presidential candidates alone. The Washington Post quoted numb Toledo voters as saying, "I'm just immune to it" and "There's just so many of them that they kind of blur together."Of course, it wasn't just the people of Toledo who felt this way. A total of 1,950,737 political TV spots aired in the nation's top 100 markets last year. That's 677 solid days of 30-second spots (source: TNSMI/CMAG).It's not going to get any quieter out there — or any easier for politicians and marketers to reach the voting and buying public. Audiences are more and more fragmented every year. People watch the handful of broadcast networks less and the hundreds of cable channels more. Since 1980, audiences for the broadcast networks' evening newscasts have fallen by more than half. These trends toward fragmented audiences account for the striking fact that American Express spent only 35% of its advertising budget on TV in 2004, down from 80% just ten years ago.This means that, like American Express, unions, grassroots organizations and political campaigns increasingly need to focus on reaching and mobilizing candidates with precision and laser-like focus. That often means communicating with individual voters on a one-to-one basis. Fundamentally, there are two ways to do that. One is door-to-door canvassing, which can be very effective but can also be difficult to organize, and expensive and inefficient when done on a large scale. Phones are the other mechanism. True, just like all those TV ads, they can irritate people, especially when they interrupt dinner. But, done correctly, they can persuade voters and move them to the polls.My firm, Winning Connections, knows a bit about what does and doesn't work when it comes to phone campaigns. We conducted twenty million phone calls during the fall campaign in 2004, and we monitor research on phone effectiveness as well as commission our own studies. We know, first of all, that people are more open to political phone calls than regular telemarketing calls (source: Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates survey). Second, live calls that spur a two-way conversation between the caller and voter can have a big impact on an election:Donald Green, Yale professor of political science and co-author ofThere is a challenge, of course, in engaging voters' attention with a phone call. It's just a fact that people generally don't like taking phone calls from people they don't know personally. That's why it's not just what you say, but how you say it that's important:Janet Grenzke, Ph.D., and Mark Watts, Ph.D.,, Dec. 2004Based on information from voting records, membership lists, polling data and other sources, phone scripts can be customized to address those "self-interests." So, in reaching out to voters individually with meaningful messages, it's clear that phones used intelligently are a critical tool in any group or candidate's campaign arsenal.The bottom line is that, even in our advanced technological age, it's still important to engage people in conversation if you want them to take action.Grant Perry is Vice President for Strategic Development and Communications at Winning Connections, a Washington, DC-based political consulting firm. This is part one of his two-part report on trends in political communication.
© 2005 Labor Research Association
© 2005 Labor Research Association
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Presidental Election & Policitcans-There Tactics and What Labor Must Do!!
I was on the computer the other day looking at some of the Presidential candidates and there views on Labor. I was not overly surprised that both sides had very different opinions on the role Labor should play in the economy. I then went on the CWA national web site because the CWA is asking its members to give who they endorse for President and noticed that all but one of the Democrats had answered the various questions asked in as many various ways. The Republican candidates were sent the same questions and they did not answer. CWA states that they attempted numerous times to get a response however none were forth coming. Some have asked why Labor supports only Democratic candidates. That is not always accurate because there are some Republicans that support Labor. I can think of 2 that have gotten Union money in the past election cycle because they live in Labor districts. Typically however, especially in the southern states, there are few Republicans that vote for Labor issues and typically vote opposite of how Labor would like. While many members may vote Republican because of other social issues we must ask ourselves some very difficult questions. Is having a good job that has negotiated wages, health care, vacation and pensions less important? If we did not have that kind of job would we be able to afford to participate in activities tied to those other issues? I would argue we would not. But we should not be surprised that we would vote against our own self interest. It is a growing phenomena in this country. During election cycles it has almost become comical (if it was not so horribly sad) to see in parts of town that are lower in the socio-economic cycle have candidate signs who have routinely voted against those very people. They have voted against SCHIPS, tuition assistance, health care reform along with other items that might have benefited those individuals in those parts of town. Yet those same individuals have a sign of support in their yard for the very person that voted against those things because they agree with them on an issue that may not even effect them. The reason that this is happening is not because those people are not smart but because they have had their attention diverted elsewhere. This has been a well used tactic for some time because there is not enough information that gets to these people through the the rest of the noise they are hearing. I feel it is incumbent upon all of us to show them what is being done to them. Whether they are in Labor or not they do work and pay taxes and they deserve better. There must be a coordinated effort that pushes these issues through the noise. We must start bombarding mainstream media with the hardships some of us face and point a very judgmental finger at those that have helped cause it. Neither party is immune from that judgemental finger but there are individuals that continue to perpetuate the problem and they must be dethroned. Some may argue with what I am about to say but the vast majority of those individuals happen to be Republicans along with a few Democrats. We have heard that some of the Democratic candidates would walk a picket line even after they are elected. If they are sincere then those are the folks we need. Because if they are willing to walk a picket then they are already on the right page to help us avoid a picket and get the job done while we stay on the job.
I would encourage every member of the Labor movement to start now by going to the politics page of MSNBC or go to the individual candidates web pages and read up on them. If they allow questions to be asked to them ask them what plans they have to help the working people of this country. Not the CEO's, we have already seen that in the current administration, but those that work for a living and need good paying jobs, good health care, pensions and having representation to protect those things. Ask them their opinion of the ADA and FMLA. If you find an issue with their answer, if you get one, then that person is not subscribing to your self interest. We all have complained about the ways or companies treat their employees; I would suggest it is time to stop complaining and start acting. How we do that is vote and vote our own interests. We can effect an election and have. We must do so again.
I would encourage every member of the Labor movement to start now by going to the politics page of MSNBC or go to the individual candidates web pages and read up on them. If they allow questions to be asked to them ask them what plans they have to help the working people of this country. Not the CEO's, we have already seen that in the current administration, but those that work for a living and need good paying jobs, good health care, pensions and having representation to protect those things. Ask them their opinion of the ADA and FMLA. If you find an issue with their answer, if you get one, then that person is not subscribing to your self interest. We all have complained about the ways or companies treat their employees; I would suggest it is time to stop complaining and start acting. How we do that is vote and vote our own interests. We can effect an election and have. We must do so again.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
VEBA-The New Health Care?
Recently the UAW and GM agreed to a new 4 year agreement that would establish a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) that would have the UAW cover its' members. While the jury is still out on whether this is a good idea or not one has to wonder if this will be the way to cover health care for employees. A VEBA is basically a trust and as a trust it can have all kinds of investments made with the money to help it grow. Helping it grow will enable the individuals enrolled in the VEBA to continue to get coverage. While I am personally unsure as to actual mechanism to make it function and remain viable I have done some research on others who have tried it. Caterpillar tried something very similar in 2004 and it the trust was bankrupt or near bankrupt by late 2005. That was not so reassuring but most of Caterpillar is not Union and that might make a difference. With the UAW looking over it there will be accountability and amounts to fund it can be negotiated. While GM funded the VEBA with anywhere from $26 billion to $61 billion there are 300,000 plus people to cover. GM was able to reduce the amount of cost per car so it could be more profitable we will have to see at what cost to the member. Chrysler has now done the same thing with the UAW and Ford is next. I hope over the next year we can get a good look at how it is working. Who knows it might be the next available option to cover those that are uncovered. It might even become an answer to the national health care crisis we face as we go into the 2008 election cycle.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
SCHIPS and the VETO
President Bush has VETOED the SCHIPS bill that was approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. While the Senate passed it with a "VETO Proof" margin the House did not. The House will attempt to override the VETO on Thursday with a vote. While a large number of people really do not have a full understanding of what SCHIPS is or how it is applied, the Labor Movement MUST stand together and get this VETO overridden. States do not have the money to continue to support the children on CHIPS and can not with out Federal subsidies. You will hear pundits against the bill say that we should not have to support children of parents that make $83,000 or more. This is a complete falsehood. The portion of the bill that discusses $83,000 is in relation to a New York State Law that would cover that high a salary. I say high but as most of us know $83,000 when making that for a family for four in New York is not very much. In California $83,000 for a family of four barely makes ends meat. Neither here or there $83,000 is not the issue it is more like $61,000 that would be the cut off. It is sad that the country has gotten to the stage of not wanting people to be able to provide basic needs for themselves or their children. I find it even more sad that this same President signed a similar bill here in Texas when he was Governor. The saddest part of all is that certain politicians want to play politics with the health of the next generation of this country. I read a couple of years ago that the average height and weight of North Koreans had dropped and the theory was that there was not adequate health care nor food for the citizens of that country. I would argue that may happen in this country if this VETO is sustained. It will not happen overnight but it could happen and that should sit on the conscience of every member of Congress that says they will vote to sustain the VETO. It is truly a sad day when the government by the people and for the people will not do what is right for those same people. This is an outrage and we all should remember it as we get closer to the 2008 elections.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Universal Health care
While I said in the beginning I did want more original ideas but Health care is a big issue with every Union member in the country. There have been many different concepts that have been discussed but everyone I have spoken to has said the health care must come of the bargaining tables. We can accomplish this but the government will have to step in because we all know we can not leave it up to the companies. We have seen the UAW version of getting it off the table for a moment with the VEBA (Voluntary Employee Benefit Association). Is that really an answer? Only time will tell but the same sort of idea was tried by Caterpillar in 2004 and it is underfunded of funded at all. It is a step, some might say in the wrong direction, but nonetheless a step to coming up with a solution. Some have a very narrow opinion of Universal Health care by calling it socialized medicine. That term is meant to evoke the old days of communism and the failed policies of the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that not only are communism and socialism entirely different it is a term that shows that someone is out of touch. Every other industrialized nation and the governments in those countries believe health care is a fundamental right for everyone of its' citizens. It could be argued that those nations are even better than the United States economically. Now keep in mind most of those nations are significantly smaller than the United States yet their population is comparable to the United States. The Health care issue is a big issue in the upcoming presidential elections but it is not getting near as much coverage as the Iraq War. Some might say that is more important, I would contend while it is important there are issues here at home so the soldiers in Iraq have something to come home to. That is as important. There are several different ideas out there and the right wing of this country which is made up of insurance companies would prefer that this just go away. They say that the care would be horrible and there would long wait lists for basic care. They use examples of Canada and some European countries. They say that those systems highlight the incompetence of the medical professionals in those countries. I contend that we have the same issues here but in the other countries the issues must be brought to the public because of the oversight the government has. In this country you only hear about the malpractice in our hospitals when suits are filed or you see someone on one of the daytime talk shows.
While there are as many different plans as there are candidates I would suggest looking into each of them to be better educated. I have reviewed what has been published and I can tell you that the Democratic candidates seem to have the better overall plans. The Republican candidates want more of the insurance "consumer driven" that we have been seeing. The republicans seem to think that the answer is to limit the amount one can get for medical malpractice law suits. While we seem to think it was absurd to get $9 million for spilling hot coffee it is a great deal different to have the wrong kidney removed or be mis-diagnosed with an ailment went it is something else that can kill you. There is a long way to go but not that far and with what we have seen in recent contract negotiations with the UAW, CWA and the Steelworkers the companies seem to want to get out of providing health care to those that make their companies profitable. There must be some relief and we had better get it soon.
While there are as many different plans as there are candidates I would suggest looking into each of them to be better educated. I have reviewed what has been published and I can tell you that the Democratic candidates seem to have the better overall plans. The Republican candidates want more of the insurance "consumer driven" that we have been seeing. The republicans seem to think that the answer is to limit the amount one can get for medical malpractice law suits. While we seem to think it was absurd to get $9 million for spilling hot coffee it is a great deal different to have the wrong kidney removed or be mis-diagnosed with an ailment went it is something else that can kill you. There is a long way to go but not that far and with what we have seen in recent contract negotiations with the UAW, CWA and the Steelworkers the companies seem to want to get out of providing health care to those that make their companies profitable. There must be some relief and we had better get it soon.
Welcome
I was in my Local Union meeting the other night and after some thought realized that there is not enough information out there for Union members to rely on. The Labor Movement does not get its' fair share of time with the media unless we have a Union on strike or there is some sort of "labor unrest". What the main strem media does not understand is the role the Labor Movement can play in the every day lives of the working public. That working public makes up the vast majority of the citizens of this country. The media will say we have some effect on elections due to our ability to organize and get out the vote. What the media does not say is why we do get out the vote or what our issues are. The hope is that this blog will bring insight to what our issues are and what Union members have to say about them. While I realize that the AFL-CIO as well as our own Unions have blogs and ask for the members input, this will be the place that the membership can drive the discussion. This blog may end up with some of the same discussion points but the intent is to provide the possible different angle to those discussion points or different items altogether.
It is an experiment but hopefully it can be used as a source of information, a place to find how to get involved in the politcal process and/or vent about frustrations we all face in the Labor Movement.
It is an experiment but hopefully it can be used as a source of information, a place to find how to get involved in the politcal process and/or vent about frustrations we all face in the Labor Movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
