I work. I know, big surprise. You probably thought this was all I did.

I have a job and it pays the bills, case closed.

Well, not really. I'm going through the process now of being represented by a union, other than my current membership in the Freelancers Union (Hey All You Freelancers!! Love ya!!). I'm looking to be represented because I changed positions in my agency and it looks as if now, I may be eligible to be in the bargaining unit. And I am THRILLED!

This past summer, I tried to find out the same information, but didn't know who to contact within my agency to determine if I was in the bargaining unit or not. So, I went the route a lot of folks do, I asked management.

I've viewed management as a resource, not necessarily as management. I've believed that they wear many hats and one of the main hats is that of serving as a resource to employees, including being a resource to find information out about union representation.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

I have since requested union assistance in being represented. In a matter of weeks, they have pushed for me and others like me to be represented in my agency. They've provided me information on legal rulings and have included me in information they send out to members, and I'm still not a member yet. They are doing all of this work, in hopes that I might be able to be represented by them, to the tune of $299 a year.

That's it. $299. That's the membership fee. That's $11.50 per pay. I can't think of anything I pay for that's so small and which I can receive so much for, by just being a member.

And now, this brings me to the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Hill Blog had a number of quotes from around the US in reference to Employee Free Choice. The number one thing I hear from conservatives when unions are brought up is about Dues. Here's the quote from Grover Norquist (Mr. I-want-to-drown-Government-in-a-Bathtub)

The percentage of American workers paying union dues out of their paychecks has fallen from 33% in the 1950s to below 13% today. Fewer than eight percent of non-government workers are in unions.

The union bosses have made it clear that their number one goal is to force more Americans to pay union dues–average about $500 per worker.

So, I decided to find out where this number is coming from. I searched Google for Average Cost of Union Dues. Top three results are anti-union screeds. After that, it's a mix of unions and anti-union forces.

What's a girl to do?

I tried a new search. what are the median US union dues more anti-union crap mixed with union stuff.

What happens when you want an authoritative source of information and not anything biased?

I'd normally turn to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But this is where it became really interesting. Instead of finding what I really wanted, I found something entirely new and even more interesting than what I originally looked for, I found statistics on race, age and gender for unionized workers. And, I found median income values for those groups and subsets.

The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current
Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 60,000
households that obtains information on employment and unemployment
among the nation's civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and
over.

Some highlights from the 2008 data are:

--Government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong
to a union than were private sector employees.

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate at 38.7 percent.

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were
white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.

--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate
(24.9 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.5 percent).

Wait, I'm not done:

Union Representation of Nonmembers

About 1.7 million wage and salary workers were represented by a
union on their main job in 2008, while not being union members them-
selves. (See table 1.) About half of these workers were employed
in government. (See table 3.)

One of the things that Republicans say when bashing unions is first, DUES, DUES DUES (um, dudes I want to pay MEMBERSHIP DUES for a union the way you, Mr Norquist, want to pay membership dues for your country club. I just get more out of my union, I get advocacy. Do you get that from the country club? Sorry, I digress). As if the concept of paying for a service is scary. I suppose to a Mr. Norquist or Mr. Newt Gingrich or Mr. Dick Cheney (oh, wait, he was a dues paying member of the IBEW, so his word probably doesn't count) that paying for services render is scary because some of the services rendered are things like negotiating, or arbitration, or shop steward advocacy or web sites or... darn scary stuff.

Recently, I joined AFGE. No, I'm still not in the bargaining unit, AFGE is now filing suit on my behalf (and apparently, a number of other folks like me who have asked), but I decided I'd at least pay my dues to my local for the services I've already used, like the advocacy of my shop steward.

I might not be the kind of person who can or would pay to join a country club, but I am the kind of person who can manage to pay $11.50 per pay to help my local build itself into a stronger union with better and more fabulous services. Most importantly, when I pay my dues, I am one of many, speaking in one voice, the union. What could be more American that that? E Pluribus Unum

Read More...

Like many folks, I've been reading loads of reports on Union organizing. Like the recently released report No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing by Columbia professor Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner and Majority Authorizations and Union Organizing in the Public Sector: A Four-State Perspective From the AFL-CIO Now Blog:

If you sign up to join a union, you won’t face coercion or intimidation from your co-workers—or employers. Despite dire warnings by corporations against the majority sign-up process, a new study shows majority sign-up (card-check) protects workers and gives them the chance they need to form a union. It’s another critical point in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers across the country the choice about how to form a union and bargain for a better life.

Here's the problem, being in a union makes our lives better. I can testify to this (thank you AFGE and my shop steward). However, the point at which you and your co-workers decide that you need a union, the worst is yet to come.

You see, the moment we decide that together we bargain and divided we beg, is the same point at which employers pull out the big guns. This is where firing happens. This is also where mandatory meetings happen where employers tell workers they'll lose benefits they have or the shop will close or it will mean a loss of your work shift or whatever else they think might be a topic of interest to you.

When we decide to stop begging for the right to work, our employers don't stop looking for ways to divide us, instead, they learn that they have all the power in this country in terms of labor law and they do not care how often, how hard or to what extent they trample our rights. And if you lose the organizing drive, few will ever even attempt to hold the employer accountable for trampling the few rights we do have.

And yes, I'm serious!

From the Bronfrenbrenner report:

Furthermore, workers are keenly aware that even in cases with egregious employer violations, the most likely penalty is a posting and a small amount of back pay, which could take more than two years from filing the charge to a final Board decision to collect...

Of course, this is why there's such a dramatic need for the Employee Choice Act.

But the other wrinkle to this, and one of the main reasons for Uniongal at all, is that like many women in the workforce, I am a single mom. I am the sole bread winner for my family. I am cook, cleaner, glass washer, launder, nurse, baker, bread winner, transporter, psychologist and maintainer.

I do it all.

And when you do it all, you're way more susceptible to intimidation, and even worse, you're constantly trying to figure it all out as a mom while also making ends meet, kind of like the 10,000 Maniac's song, Dust Bowl Days where Natalie Merchant sings about how this mom just can't get ahead:



All workers know the feeling. When our employer goes that extra mile to ensure that you, their employee, knows your place and that unionization (of any kind or even thought) is a no-no. Brings me back to Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner's report and her description not of a single event in the unsuccessful United Steelworkers organizing campaign at Rugby, but Rugby's overall strategy:

The most important part of the Rugby story is not the most dramatic—the discharges and layoffs—but rather the full arc of the employer’s plan, which in fact started not with the meeting with the supervisors, but as Bogas points out in his decision, with its aggressive union-free policy. This policy was clearly outlined in the employee handbook, and read out loud to all new employees upon hiring. It made it clear that unions would not be tolerated, laying the groundwork for the aggressive and intense effort that followed. But the model that Rugby and so many others of these campaigns adopt is one in which the priority task of frontline supervisors is to ascertain through whatever means possible the leanings of every worker and then use the more aggressive retaliatory tactics to sway those leaning toward unionization.

On any given day, workers across this country are exposed to supervisors and companies who see them as worthless, incompetent or union sympathizing "thugs". These are good workers. They are you and me. They are your moms and dads. Even your brothers and sisters. In fact, you might actually be one of these workers. You aren't incompetent. You aren't a thug or a trouble maker. You have the right to join, form or to organize a union. But we have to demand that right to make that decision without having to go through the crap that employers throw at us.

So, to summarize, if you, as an employee feel you need a union, and you work toward that end, your employer can behave egregiously (fire you or your co-workers, suspend you, strip you of all sorts of things at work, etc...) and there's little or no consequence and when there actually is a violation found, it takes years to collect; ages to get justice. But if you win and you are in the union, you risk far less in terms of retaliation or intimidation from not only your employer but also co-workers. And, there's this new Bill in the Senate called the Employee Free Choice Act which aims at leveling the playing field, making it easier for employees to decide if they want to go through an election or to sign up using a simple card.

So, there you have it. Two recent reports that I've been reading. My thoughts about how it all relates and my hope in the end that single moms like me and many others can simply be able to do better than to just get by. It kind of sucks out here sometimes. It sure would be nice to have a Congress that understood what it's like to watch pennies, nickles and dollars slip away and how being in a union can help to stop that from being the case.

Thank you Dr. Bronfenbrenner for researching these issues and more importantly, giving a voice to so many workers just through the numbers you cite. Who knew a bunch of numbers and stories could be so powerful. If you get a minute, head over to the report, it's really very shocking.

Read More...

I don't normally copy things from Newspapers. Newspapers have it hard enough these days just surviving, but this was just too good to not share. It appears to be a letter to the editor or some kind of "guest" column in the Anchorage Daily News

Millions of mothers are uninsured, even though a majority of them work, sometimes more than one job. It's wrong when many of the mothers who raise America's children are uninsured and struggle to provide for their families. I am lucky; I belong to a union.

I became a single mother of an 8 year-old son while I was serving in the United States Army. This was a very frightening experience for me. My son's dad was not around to help raise him. After I left the Army, I found a job working for a company where women had no opportunity to advance. I was fortunate to then land a union job. I started work with a 90-day probation period, and on my 89th day I had an accident for which I was fired.

Even though I didn't have grievance rights, my union fought for me. The accident wasn't my fault, but my employer argued I was responsible. Because of my union steward, however, the mediator decided to reinstate me. To begin with, the accident wasn't my fault, and the mediator also pointed out that there were four men who were involved in accidents in their first 90 days and weren't fired. Would I have gotten my job back if I didn't have a union fighting for me? Was this worth every penny of my dues? You're darn right it was. I love my job and I raised my son with no worries. I earn a fair day's pay, decent benefits and have job security. Shouldn't everybody have this?

My son, who is now 24, has few benefits and no job security. I want more for him, but good, secure jobs are scarce. Is there anything wrong with a mother wanting a good life for her child?

All workers should have the opportunity to join a union like I did. The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill currently before Congress, will enable workers to form and join unions. It will penalize employers who break the law, and level the playing field for workers to win a contract. This legislation will put the choice in the hands of the workers and take away the veto power employers have over workers.

The Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for more moms to join a union and get health insurance for their families. When moms have it better, so does everyone else. Senator Murkowski, please do something for the women who do so much for everybody. Please support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Carol Salandra lives in Anchorage

As a single mother myself, I can empathize. I can empathize even more today than in years past. I've belonged to two unions in the past, and although the Teamsters tried to help out in one job, the SEIU was not exactly helpful in another. I don't think it was the union itself in either case, it was the strength of the shop steward that I had. Some are really amazing and some, leave a lot to be desired. The experiences that Carol had with her union and more specifically, the shop steward, goes to something folks who don't have unions or have terrible shop stewards never know or feel, advocacy.

Recently, I found myself in some hot water due to a couple of issues that stem from my supervisor. I contacted the union. Although they do not yet represent me (we're working on that)the shop steward has taken vacation time to assist me. He's provided me background on rules, laws and given me forms to use for all sorts of things. None of which did I have access to in the past. He's said one very powerful thing that has stuck with me since the hot water started to boil, "Management is not your friend." He's right. I know, it probably doesn't sound all that revolutionary, but it was to me.

Carol, thank you for your letter or guest column. You have given me something to share and have provided a personal story that shows the power of union advocacy. Carol, thank you. For single moms like me everywhere, thank you.

Read More...

Employee Free Choice Act. I kind of hate the title.

I never really understand the term Free Choice when just about anyone uses it. It's not like I'm not bright, I am. I'm articulate too, wahoo for me. But the concept of a "Free Choice" always escapes me.

I suppose my issue is with the seemingly obvious concept of "free" in "Free Choice." It's the concept that you can make a decision about your life, your being completely freely. Seems so simple. A concept where you aren't constrained by morality, faith, anger, emotional baggage or even peer pressure.

Let's face it, no choice is ever really free. Things are weighed, considered, addressed for their obvious issues with risk or just plain old fears. In the end, what weighs on our individual minds seems to be of more consequence than say the ability to make a "free" choice.

I think that's what Harold Meyerson was getting at in his piece from the Washington Post

If our nation was governed by business's version of democratic choice, we would hold elections to determine the winner, but nearly half the time the incumbent would remain in power even if he lost.

snip

But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -

snip

It's a lovely system for businesses that don't want to pay higher wages or accord their workers some rights, and they've been fighting hard to keep it that way.

Businesses care about nothing but their needs and desires. Kind of like a tyrant or some other despot. And yeah, they have power and they brag about it too,like they did in the LA Times:

In the Ozark Mountain town of Rogers, Ark., more than 250 business owners gathered for lunch at a construction company last month to focus on what they saw as a major threat -- a proposal in Congress to make it easier to form labor unions.

At each place setting, attendees found pre-stamped postcards and pre-written letters to be sent to Arkansas' U.S. senators, Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, who had supported the labor bill in the past. After lunch, the business owners were ushered to computers to send e-mail messages as well.


Five days later came the good news: Two Senate votes had been stripped from the pro-union bill. Lincoln said she would oppose it outright, while Pryor declared the current version "dead" and said he would look for compromises.

This is not about postcards or e-mails, or even the meaning of the word FREEDOM, it's about what business does to get what it wants. And it does some pretty damn awful stuff, not just turning wavering votes in Wal-Mart's home state against Employee Free Choice, but stuff like hiring day laborers and undocumented workers because you can pay them next to nothing and get away with it, time and time again. Or you can rob your workers of overtime or make them work off the clock.

And, none of this is new. Unbossed looked at wage theft just last year:

GAO identified case studies that show WHD [Wage and Hour Division] inadequately investigated complaints from low-wage and minimum wage workers alleging that employers failed to pay the federal minimum wage, required overtime, and failed to pay employees their last paychecks. Examples of inadequate WHD responses to complaints included instances where WHD inappropriately rejected complaints, failed to adequately investigate complaints, or neglected to investigate until it was too late. The table below provides examples of several case studies.

In the grand scheme of things, Harold Meyerson is the one who really has it right, the way things are now, it's a lovely system for businesses. There are no consequences for them to screw workers out of their wages, pay checks, benefits and even health care. Whatever they want to do, they can do, because there is no one holding them accountable, and if they get their way and are able to keep the Employee Free Choice Act from ever being passed, well, maybe I won't be the only one wondering what Freedom and Choice mean.

Seems as if the real Choice here is between the Freedom to join a union and the Freedom of businesses to continue to shove the status quo down our throats. Isn't really much of a choice, is it?

Read More...

I just looked and there appear to still be seats available for this Downtown (near the White House) event:

Greedy CEOs and anti-union front groups are already working overtime to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. To make sure they don't win, we need to ramp up our activism.

But what role is there for online activism in the fight? How can unions and progressive allies beat back fear-mongering from the corporate interests? What messaging tools will be employed by pro-employee choice groups, and how can the Netroots stand up to the anti-union echo-chamber?

This Friday, join Stewart Acuff of the AFL-CIO, Laura Clawson of Daily Kos, Rebecca Wasserman of American Rights at Work and Michael Whitney of the SEIU for a conversation on how the Netroots can make employee free choice a reality in 2009. The panel will be moderated by Christopher Hayes, Washington DC editor of The Nation.

Click here to reserve your spot.

Netroots Nation DC
Friday, May 8, noon to 2 p.m.
AFL-CIO, George Meany Room
815 16th St. NW, Washington DC

This event is part of the Netroots Nation Salon Series, launched in August 2008 to provide year-round opportunities for the progressive community to exchange ideas and learn how to be more effective in using technology to influence the public debate.

Passing the Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field and put the power back where it belongs—in the hands of workers. Click here to join us for this important discussion.

Thanks for making a difference.
Karen, Mary, Nolan and Raven

PS: Space is extremely limited, so be sure to RSVP now.

I'm working, so I can't attend. But anyone who does, drop me a line, I'd love to post some info on the event.

Read More...

Perhaps, you can figure out the why, if you hear it from someone who needs a union and isn't able now to organize one because of fear of job loss:

The problem is simple - I'm at an impasse. On one hand, I stand to gain a formidable amount from unionization. However, at the same time, I can relate horror stories from previous employees who attempted to unionize this very company - and were fired for it. I wouldn't put a mass-layoff past this company if the shit goes and hits the fan with this, and I, rather unfortunately, need this job about as much as I need oxygen to survive - ergo the dilemma.

Now, it goes without saying that my mere presence on DailyKos, along with the content of the bulk of this post, surmises nicely my feelings on why the Unions are win. However, for those pressing for Unionization in the current political climate, one can begin to rapidly see just how much we frickin' need the Employee Free Choice Act passed.

The front lines on this bill aren't merely the Wal-Marts and Home Depots of this country, throwing enough cash that could keep their employees set for life at lobbying against it just so they can continue to not provide healthcare, abuse their employees, and provide poor wages and hours, but at a far more local level, with smaller companies willing to coerce, intimidate, and fire employees just to keep their costs down.

Highly recommend you head over to Dailykos and read the entire diary.

Read More...

I got an e-mail about the Today show this morning. I read it in disbelief. Matt Lauer actually lies on camera and then asks a Wal-Mart exec to clarify his already egregiously wrong talking point, really? No way, can't be real. Must be a fake video. Then I went over to the House Education and Labor Committee Blog, and nope, it's not a fake. From the blog:

Earlier this morning, Matt Lauer, co-host of the Today Show, interviewed Mike Duke, the new CEO of Wal-Mart, and they talked about the Employee Free Choice Act. Unfortunately, Mr. Lauer led his question with a mischaracterization of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mischaracterization? Unless Matt Lauer is an idiot, it's being too kind to Lauer to use such tame wording, call it what it is, a lie. Or, Matt Lauer is an idiot. I have a hard time believing that anyone gets to where he is if he's an idiot. Of course, maybe he's just lazy. Here's the video (thanks to Media Matters for the embed code!:



Here's what the House Committee had to say about the piece on their blog:

Asking the CEO of Wal-Mart about the Employee Free Choice Act is like asking the fox about the hen house. To read Human Rights Watch's 2007 report on "Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association" please click here. (pdf)

BTW, one other thought, Lauer, using an average hourly means that you also include the top salaries. That's what Wal-Mart does. They make numbers lie for them. Just like the anti-UAW worker numbers you kept repeating in December about the average hourly wage of an autoworker. Didn't matter to you or the rest of the Traditional media that the number was wrong, but hey, whatever. I suppose, I just shouldn't expect anything else from the likes of Lauer.

PST, Lauer, this fact sheet on the Myths and Facts of Employee Free Choice.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the "secret ballot" election.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the secret ballot eleciton process. That process, also known as a National Labor Relations Board election would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers, not corporate executives, to make that decision.

See, Matt, it really wasn't that hard to find the truth. And I didn't have to sit through an interview with a greedy slimy bastard to find it. Perhaps next time, you can learn from me, and google it first. I know, probably just a little too much work for you, but if I don't ask you to do it, I can't actually expect you to do it. Well, you've been asked, and now, I expect it.

Read More...

No, seriously.

Rick Smith of the Rick Smith Radio Show interviewed me about blogging.

And Rick Rocks:

Rick grew up in a housing project on the West Side of Cleveland, OH. He was literally poor whitey in the hood. SNIP Rick is currently a 19 year member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Vice-President of the International Labor Communications Association, www.ilcaonline.org.

There's more on the flip

I'm just amazed at how much I have in common with this guy, all the way to getting drunk on the same college campus probably during the same years!! Here's more of Rick's Rocky-ness!!

When John Kerry lost in 2004 Rick realized that he had to do more. So on Labor Day weekend 2005 Rick began his radio journey. United for Progress was born out of frustration and optimism as a vehicle to add balance to the conservative controlled airwaves. 2008 looks to be a very positive year and the Rick Smith Show will be on the front lines.

Kind of cool, huh? Well, there's more, you see I was a bad, bad girl...


Here's the thing, I couldn't stick to the script. The script being blogging. That was the topic, but talking about blogging when I'm not actually blogging, ugh. Instead, I decided I wanted to talk about a recent diary I posted on DKos, a rescued diary, thank you very much.

I was able to talk about women in the labor movement, women like Mandy from Ohio and how she's now driving a dump truck and getting steady apprenticeship work through her union. And why is she getting steadier work now? Well there was this little thing called the Stimulus Bill. She's working a Shovel Ready Project. As a single mom with two little girls, that steady pay check is important, very important. But what I love about Mandy's story is that she'd been working at a Good Year service center and had been promised that she'd be able to get certified to be a mechanic. She kept working there, watching as her male counter parts hired after her just kept getting promoted or trained and she couldn't. So, she applied for the apprenticeship program and although it was hard at first to make ends meet during the first part of the apprenticeship, she's now got steadier work, makes more than she did at Good Year and is moving up the ranks, toward a journeyman level.

I also got to talk about how the Employee Free Choice act will have a greater impact on women in the labor force than it will on men. My point on this piece was that women make different choices when we take a job. It might be because we're thinking about the hours, getting kids to school or trying to figure out a way to be home to make dinner. We simply think differently about working and how to work than our male counterparts.

That's when Rick made an excellent point. In a union, everyone knows what everyone else makes. You see, it's part of the contract. But women outside of unions don't get this break, take the story about Mandy. She discovered after the fact, that men hired after she was were getting paid more. When waited tables, male servers made more than we did. My mom always said it's because people think they're raising a family and need a higher wage. But so are we.

So, if you get a minute, check out the audio file. I'd love to hear what everyone has to say. And, if I'm on again, what do you think I should talk about? Keep in mind, I'm pretty labor and women focused, but I really would like some new ideas. Who knows where those thoughts could lead me?

And, in case you missed it at the top, here's the audio file again:
Rick Smith Radio Show

Read More...

The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report in early December on the earning power of women in unions. Feministing summarized it like this:

The report...found that unionized women workers earned 11.2 percent more than their non-union peers and that women in unions were more likely to have health insurance and a pension plan.

I know, this is not surprising news. But what if you thought about this study a little differently? What if instead of focusing on the difference in earning power between women able to unionize and those not, we focused more on making it possible for all workers to choose a union?

For those of you who don't know (and let's face it there might be a few here), the ability for workers to decide on a union is really held in the hands of employers. Employers who often intimidate, fire and harass anyone who's signed a card because they want to be represented by a union.

Well, Monday, on the Hill,

...the National Council of Women’s Organizations hosted a congressional briefing for members of Congress, their staff, the press and the public. The goal of the briefing was for attendees to learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act and the difference its passage would make for women workers. The panelists highlighted the key difference that union membership makes for women and stressed the urgent need for reformed labor laws that will make it easier for workers to form their union.

I was especially interested in the focus not only on women, but on how the Employee Free Choice Act will have a dramatic impact on women. Again, from the Teamsters:

The panelists noted that women make up 45 percent of the union work force in the United States, and if the pace of growth continues, women will be the majority of the unionized work force in the United States by the year 2020. Union membership narrows the wage gap and increases the probability that women will have access to health insurance coverage.

So this got me to thinkin'. Women make up 45% of unionized workers. But what about the rest of the work force? How are women fairing in the economy? According to the Daily Toreador, women are doing pretty good, so to speak:

The economic recession led to many job losses, but mainly for men, said Mitra Toossi, a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections economist.

About 82 percent of job losses belong to men, she said, and the percentage of women who lose their jobs hasn't changed much since the recession began.

snip

Many women who work support families, Toossi said, and women with families are more likely to take jobs that do not require many hours and have little, if any, benefits.

Okay, so this got me really thinking now, specifically about the opposition to Employee Free Choice. It's as if the men in the room, the well thinking, well positioned men; who own businesses; who look like Rick Berman or work at Edleman PR; the men who join country clubs and head to the Senate to represent other men at the Chamber of Commerce, it's as if they are telling me and women like me and my mother that unions are for men, we women shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it. And yet, the largest group of workers who would be affected by this legislation would be women.

Katie Jordan, president of the Chicago Coalition of Labor Union Women told the World that passing the Free Choice act would assist working women demand equal pay for equal work.

“Women without unions are on the lowest economic totem pole and do not have the equal opportunity to talk to their bosses about increasing their wages,” said Jordan. Too many families today are not in unions and struggle to pay their mortgages, added Jordan.

“It’s the workers who make the products and keep companies alive,” said Jordan. “People need to get paid for what they’re worth and feel free to join unions without being harassed,” she said.

Years ago, I sat through a presentation in college about the ad industry and changes in the ad industry as women entered the workforce. The oddest thing about it, were the images of women portrayed as girls, in pig tails for women's colognes or my favorite the Enjoli woman. If you're in your 30's you likely also remember, but for the rest of you, let me shine some light:

Christina: I can put the wash on the line, feed the kids, get dressed, pass out the kisses and get to work by 5 to 9.
'Cause I'm a Woman, Enjoli!

(Announcer): Charles of The Ritz Creates Enjoli. The New 8 Hour Perfume for The 24 Hour Woman.

Christina: I can bring home the Bacon!
Chorus: Enjoli.
Christina: Fry it up in a Pan!
Chorus: Enjoli.
Christina: And Never, Never, Never let you forget You're a Man!
'Cause I'm a Woman!
Chorus: Enjoli!

Images of women, even when shown to somehow have some power ultimately come down to what she does for a man. I know, the Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly concept of what women are good for, but my bigger issue here is how these very concerned men see empowerment of women as a risk to our society. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act at this time, they claim, would send us into a deeper recession. That the system we have now is good enough.

Again, from the Teamsters:

“Union issues are women’s issues,” Choudhry said.

On a more global scale, Heath pointed to the myth that unions destroy competitiveness, noting that in many European countries, employers pay skilled union workers high wages to produce high quality products that compete in the marketplace. Heath noted that compared to other developed nations, the United States has some of the most restrictive labor laws and the least equitable distribution of productivity gains throughout the population.

Noting that women still earn, on average, 78 cents to the dollar of men’s earnings, Rosenblatt spoke on the critical need for the Employee Free Choice Act in order for women and men to gain rights at work to form a union and bargain collectively for gains.

I know how folks feel about union issues here, they are often dropped in favor of issues relating to the environment or energy. But what I'd like to ask you to do today, is to look around. Look at the mothers, sisters, daughters and friends and think about what they do on a daily basis to feed and clothe their families. And think, for just a minute how much better they could do it if they just had the ability to choose for themselves to unionize or not to unionize.

Clearly, many people do get the impact the Employee Free Choice Act will have on women, and it's profound. I for one am especially appreciative of my former union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) for getting the word out on women and the Employee Free Choice Act. Seems like the right time for the rest of us now, too.

Read More...

No, it's true. It's been studied and it's not surprising. But have you ever thought about how the Employee Free Choice Act could make an even greater difference in the lives of women? I have. Having the ability as a worker to choose to sign a card and be recognized or sign a card and hold an election, well, let's just say it's profound. And I'm not the only one thinking about it, either!!

There is no doubt about it. Union membership makes a critical difference in the lives of women. With the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, more women – and as a result, their families – would have greater opportunities and access to a living wage, health care, retirement and job security.

This union difference for women was the topic of conversation on Capitol Hill today, where the National Council of Women’s Organizations hosted a congressional briefing for members of Congress, their staff, the press and the public. The goal of the briefing was for attendees to learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act and the difference its passage would make for women workers. The panelists highlighted the key difference that union membership makes for women and stressed the urgent need for reformed labor laws that will make it easier for workers to form their union. The distinguished panelists included:

Rachna Choudhry, Policy and Advocacy Manager, National Partnership for Women & Families
Ariane Hegewisch, Study Director, Institute for Women’s Policy Research
Carol Rosenblatt, Executive Director, Coalition of Labor Union Women
Amy Swanson, Grassroots Lobbyist, Service Employees International Union
Tiffany Heath, National Coalition Organizer, Voice at Work, AFL-CIO

The panelists noted that women make up 45 percent of the union work force in the United States, and if the pace of growth continues, women will be the majority of the unionized work force in the United States by the year 2020. Union membership narrows the wage gap and increases the probability that women will have access to health insurance coverage.

“Union issues are women’s issues,” Choudhry said.

On a more global scale, Heath pointed to the myth that unions destroy competitiveness, noting that in many European countries, employers pay skilled union workers high wages to produce high quality products that compete in the marketplace. Heath noted that compared to other developed nations, the United States has some of the most restrictive labor laws and the least equitable distribution of productivity gains throughout the population.

Noting that women still earn, on average, 78 cents to the dollar of men’s earnings, Rosenblatt spoke on the critical need for the Employee Free Choice Act in order for women and men to gain rights at work to form a union and bargain collectively for gains.

The need for the Employee Free Choice Act was also a major topic of conversation, gaining much attention at the sixth annual Teamsters Organizers Conference this weekend, where women workers and organizers talked about the urgent need for the Employee Free Choice Act.

“The Employee Free Choice Act would lessen the fear, because the intimidation factor is there. Workers are afraid of losing their jobs in this economy,” said Vangie Moreno, a Teamsters International Union organizer, who meets with hundreds of workers on a regular basis. “The workers I’ve worked to organize have mainly been women, single and divorced, who have children and are the sole breadwinners of the household. The Employee Free Choice Act would give them the choice to form a union to provide a better life for themselves and their families.”

Clearly, many others get it, including the Teamsters. Nice to see my old union pulling for women.

Read More...

Blaming the union and its membership (um, I mean WORKERS here) is absolutely ridiculous.

Emptywheel has an excellent post up right now on this that deserves a closer look:

What the AP Left Out about the UAWBy: emptywheel Saturday November 15, 2008 1:42 pm

21diggs digg it

The AP has an article reporting that Ron Gettelfinger, head of the UAW, says the union will not make any more concessions to keep the Big Three in business. I guess the editor cut a big chunk--because the article obviously falls short of explaining why the UAW is taking this stand. Here's what the AP left in:

''The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,'' Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

''We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that,'' he said.

Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control -- the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.
''We're here not because of what the auto industry has done,'' he said. ''We're here because of what has happened to the economy.''

And here's what the AP didn't report (I'm sure it was just an oversight, really).

In its contract last year, the UAW made painful concessions, adopting a two-tier wage structure, such that new employees make just $12 to $15 an hour. The move is projected to bring the American manufacturers in line with their Japanese rivals' non-union labor costs in the near future.

In addition, the union has taken responsibility for providing retiree healthcare, thereby eliminating one of the last remaining competitive disadvantages for the American manufacturers' unionized workforce as compared to their Japanese rivals.

With these agreements, the UAW has managed to save jobs, while still providing the superior labor force that leads most segments (big PDF, see page 10-11) in terms of the most efficient plants measured in hours per vehicle.

The UAW's workers have made deep concessions to ensure American-owned auto industry remains competitive with its foreign competitors. Now that the American-owned manufacturers have eliminated some of the structural disadvantages that gave foreign competitors a market advantage, it would be a terrible waste for its country not to do what's necessary to sustain American manufacturing though this tough financial period.

There. Now it tells a more complete story.

I actually discussed the Media's anti-union bias yesterday after watching Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw shilling for the right wing on Meet the Press. Here's what I had to say yesterday:

I don't normally watch the Sunday talk shows, they just end up being so damn insulting to my intelligence. But for some odd reason I started watching it this morning and no, I wasn't disappointed, it completely insulted my intelligence and that of everyone else who happened to have the misfortune of listening.

Andrea Mitchell decided on a whim to bring up the Employee Free Choice Act, but of course, she used the Right Wing Talking Points, only to be re-enforced in those wingnut talk points.

Mitchell: ...The labor unions will be asked to make some kind of concessions, and what the uaw leaders said in an unusual press conference only yesterday was we’ve made enough concessions. So, as you point out there is the clash, the ability to organize, card check is the short term for it.

Brokaw: Without a secret ballot

Mitchell: without a secret ballot, is a BIG concession to labor. and that is gonna be one of the the early fights in this congress. And Barack Obama is going to have to make a choice on all these things as to whether he can find ways around it. And can answer the economists question as to why Toyota is successful, which is producing American jobs it’s just that their not union jobs.

Okay, I can answer that for you Andrea and let me put it into a way that your little mind can understand:

Toyota competes with GM and Ford for labor, assembly line work and precision assembly workers. Because they compete in the same market as GM and Ford and Chrysler, they have to pay the same wages. However, their benefits are not as good as those of GM, Ford and Chrysler. In fact, Toyota doesn’t provide a pension, health care to retirees and a number of other incentives that the unions which you hate have secured for their membership over YEARS and YEARS of work. But if you want to toss that out the window and ask why doesn't GM just declare Bankruptcy and gut all of their retirees pensions, health care and agreements with their employees, then Andrea, you also need to ask yourself what happens to all of those people? What happens to the pensioner who has no income or health care?

Toyota and Honda do not play on equal footing with GM and Chrysler and Andrea and Brokaw should know that. See, I think they do, they just don't really care. It's not like the economy is hurting them or that NBC is just going to turn off their spigot.

And Tom, let me also explain something else to you, something that you obviously don’t understand.

The Employee Free Choice Act makes it possible for EMPLOYEES to CHOOSE an election or CHOOSE to sign their card and leave it to that. Right now, it’s up to the BOSS and NOT the EMPLOYEE. And there is no SECRECY in today’s standards because the Boss gets to know who the employees are that have signed their cards and want a union.

But what you and Andrea also ignored as a concept is that organizing a union isn’t nearly as important as having a way to get employers to the table to negotiate. The Employee Free Choice Act provides for stiff penalties for employers who ignore the bargaining rights of their employees. I think this is what really is the heart in this fight. It's not that employees can organize, it's that the employers who screw with the results face actual penalties. There are penalties now, but it takes forever and the results of the penalties take YEARS to be realized if ever.

Despite what the rightwing says or lies about in terms of workers and unions, it is still the policy of the United States of America to ENCOURAGE UNIONIZATION:

National Labor Relations Act

The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.

The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.

Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed.

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

So, Andrea and Tom, please understand that not only are you two shills for the anti-union anti-worker establishment fronted by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and McCain, but you two also don't seem to know your asses from a hole in the ground.

Employee Free Choice is Good For The Economy BECAUSE it is good for workers, unless of course you don't think workers are part of the economy or deserve to be represented by a union, a union of their own choosing.

Why does the Media hate workers so much? And worse, why are union production crews and writers continuing to spill out this garabage when in the end, they know it's garbage? If you're producing CBS, NBC, ABC or any other cable or network news and YOU are a union member, can you just think a minute before you write for a teleprompter anything that's anti-union and anti-worker garbage? Your brothers and sisters of the UAW would appreciate it.

Hell, I'd appreciate it.

Read More...

Read More...

I noticed recently that CNN gets it wrong on unions and the Employee Free Choice Act.

I know, this is not really a surprise to most people readin this blog, but you never know, perhaps I'm reaching out to those who aren't really familiar with CNN and their anti-worker stances. So, let' me take a few minutes to Fact Check, CNN's Fact Check of McCain's October 13th speech:

In a speech Monday, October 13, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain took on Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's stance on unions. "Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections," he said.

First, let's talk McSame and his rampant anti-unionism.

- He does not support Firefighter's right to collectively bargain
- He opposes IAFF's attempts at ensuring all firefighters have the right to join a union
- In 1996 He voted for a bill that would have repealed the section of the National Labor Relations Act that allows states to determine their own laws on union security agreements and replaced it with a federal mandate banning such agreements.
- In 2005, McCain tried to limit overtime for workers by radically overhauling the Fair Labor Standards Act whereby workers would be paid overtime for hours in excess of 80 in a two week period instead of hours in excess of 40 in a one week period.
- In 2005">McCain has blocked legislation (Fillibuster and voting to not end debate) on The Employee Free Choice Act (2007), Striker's Rights (to not be replaced by Scabs - multiple votes), He's voted for the elimination of Davis Bacon's prevailing wage rates,


Okay, got some of that out of the way, let's now talk about how wrong his statement is and then take a look at CNN's bizarro world coverage.

McCain notes in his statement that the Employee Free Choice Act will eliminate secret ballot elections. This is not true, employees can still request an election. But it will give equal time to unions to speak to workers including equal time to the pro-union workers on those jobs.


These comments always fail to note that "Secret Ballot Election" is not really an election in the sense that most Americans understand an election to be. In the US, our labor laws were written in the 30's and anti-unionism was very high and that fear is often represented in the manner in which those laws were written.

Take this op-ed in the Hill by Gordon Lafer, a political scientist at the University of Oregon and the author of Free and Fair? How Labor Law Fails U.S. Democratic Election Standards:

For instance, in elections for Congress or the president, it is illegal for a private corporation to tell its employees anything that favors one candidate or the other. But in workplace elections, it is standard practice for supervisors to hold repeated one-on-one conversations with the individuals they oversee. Here, the person who has the most direct control over hiring and firing, promotion, raises, hours and duties tells their subordinates in no uncertain terms why a union would be bad for them. The message is clear: If you ever want a raise, or a day off to take your kid to a doctor, you better not support the union.

Many of the tactics used to intimidate employees are legal. However, because federal labor law contains no possibility of punitive fines, prison or any other type of sanction, employers break the law at will. Last year, approximately 15,000 Americans were illegally fired, suspended or otherwise financially punished for trying to form a union in their workplace.

An election where one party controls the media, requires voters to attend its rallies, enforces a gag order on opponents and fires voters for backing the opposition is undemocratic and un-American. The Employee Free Choice Act would reform the current system to guarantee that Americans who want to form a union are able to do so in part by ending the charade that we call a Labor Board election by giving workers a second option: the choice to form a union by a majority sign-up process.

CNN is perpetuating a myth that somehow union elections are not only secret elections but also FAIR and they are neither. The message to workers is always clear and pounded into them day in and day out that joining a union will mean no sick days or possible firing or goodness knows what else.

But it's not actually the election that takes a long time. Most elections (about 92%) are actually completed within 60 days of the request. The issue is all of the appeals to the elections and all of the employer's ability to stack the deck in their favor, and with card check, WORKERS get a choice to do a card check by majority signature or to request an election, a fair election.

Tula Connell posted at Firedoglake last year about this and I wanted to take just a small excerpt from it:

But Big Money groups like the anti-worker and Orwellian-named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and CUF, the Center for Union Facts (not), are waging a massive effort to defeat the bill—making these past few days critical for supporters of the bill to make our voices heard. CUF alone is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post and elsewhere, as well as on ads on CNN and Fox (natch) trashing the bill.

These groups' big lie is that the Employee Free Choice Act will take away the secret ballot election process. It would not. Instead, it would ensure workers have another option in addition to the ballot process—majority sign-up (card-check). The employee advocacy group American Rights at Work does a great job here in showing how a ballot election at the workplace is far from democratic—and so it can't be compared with the type of elections we had in this country before Bush.

CNN is wrong. Their Fact check uses the same old LIE from the right wing and makes it "truth." It's laziness to the extreme because there is enough information out there for them to see the difference, hell, if they'd just read the actual legislation they'd see that, instead they post this kind of crap:

Verdict: True. McCain accurately represents Obama's stance, although the candidates disagree on the merits of the plan. Organized labor backs Obama's position, while business groups and some non-union workers support McCain's.

Non-union workers support McCain? My parents are non-union workers and mom supports Obama and Dad, he's still undecided (I'm working on him). Given the chance, 60 million US workers would join a union. The problem is here that there is little chance because doing something in support of a union also means risking suspension, sitting through anti-union propaganda, or risking your family's livelihood.

Card Check is the right thing to do for American workers. We are the back bone of the country and it's about time that both businesses and also politicians understood that point. More importantly, it'd just be nice if CNN understood the difference between a Card Check system with optional FAIR elections and the current systems of intimidation, fear mongering and illegal activities on the part of employers trying to keep out unions through a "secreat ballot election".

I suppose it's too much to ask for that CNN figure out that "Secret Ballot" is really code for "NO UNIONS WANTED" and yeah, that includes the rhetoric of McCain, Mr. Anti-Union himself. But I'm not sure why they think that we aren't going to call them out on this shoddy work. I mean, come on, how long would it have really taken them to do their fucking job and get it right instead of throwing out more ridiculous Right-Wing talking points? This doesn't make you Fair and Balanced, it just makes you fox-light. Of course, perhaps that's what you're really going for, faux style news that always puts forward the Right Wing Talking Points.

CNN, I expect more from you.

But you know, I don't want to close on a sour "I expect more from CNN note" I want to end this with my favorite Union quote this year:

It’s time we had a President who didn’t choke saying the word “union.”

This is exactly what I want out of a President.

Read More...

So, I opened my e-mail and found this:

One Year Ago, We Made a MajorityOne year ago today, a majority of the U.S. Senate stood up for workers' rights by voting for the Employee Free Choice Act.

On June 26, 2007 51 Senators joined 241 members of the House in supporting this bill to restore the middle class. Unfortunately, a procedural move by a minority of anti-worker Senators meant that the chamber fell short of the 60 votes needed to send the bill to the President.

At the time, American Rights at Work Executive Director Mary Beth Maxwell noted:

Anti-worker interests and legislators are standing in the way of progress, but they won't prevail. It's no longer about if—it's about when we restore workers' freedom to form unions. Hard-working men and women deserve a free choice and a fair chance at forming a union. And a majority in Congress recognize that the Employee Free Choice is a vital part of restoring America's middle class.

As the Campaign for America's Future sums up the situation well today:

The federal government is blocking the freedom of working people to make their own decisions about joining a union. The current "election" system for union recognition is decidedly undemocratic. One side—the corporation—has all the power, controls the information workers receive, and routinely poisons the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing, and even firing people who try to organize unions.

We're going to continue to push to save the middle class in the next Congress. We hope to have the best shot yet at passing the Employee Free Choice Act next year by building on our existing majority in Congress, and we may even have a President who'll sign the bill. As CAF notes,

This is a good time to ask people running for office whether they stand with workers and their right to form unions or with the corporations and conservative enablers who would block this right.

Take the first step now. Declare your support for the Employee Free Choice Act by signing our petition.
--
Michael Whitney

Employee FREE CHOICE is important not only for current union members but it is even more vital for all of us working stiffs who have no hope of joining a union. I'm exempted myself now and boy, can I tell you that this week, I have so missed having the support of my former unions. Employee Free Choice won't help me, but it will help my mother, father and so many of my friends who are afraid to join unions or are afraid that they'll get screwed during the "secret" ballot elections and the run up to them. And this, is a pretty freaking bad problem in and of it self.

So, go forth and Organize. In the words of the imortal Joe Hill, Don't Mourn, ORGANIZE.

Read More...