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...

Gas prices suck! OMG, suck!! But Drilling, isn't the answer. We have to figure out a way to build our economy, build jobs and reduce green house gases caused by our reliance on oil. So, how? I think the answer is GREEN, and apparently, so does Jim Hoffa...

Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said today that working Americans hard hit by rising gas prices and a collapsing economy demand a comprehensive long-term program focused on exploring and developing alternative sources of energy as a solution to the crisis facing our country.

“We are not going to drill our way out of the energy problems we are facing—not here and not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Hoffa told labor and environmental activists at an Oakland, Calif., summit on good jobs and clean air. “We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Big thanks to Jason at CtW for the info on this one.

Read More...

A little over a month ago I ran across a diary on Dailykos that I found useful, interesting and full of information. Because of this, I asked the author if I could reprint it in its entirety. So, here it is:

The ILWU, Kansas City and Mexican Truckers
Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:44:56 PM EDT

Seventy-four years ago, longshoremen on the West Coast walked off the job to protest the imposition of an "open shop" by shipping and stevedoring firms. The strike, known variously as the West Coast Longshoremen’s Strike and the West Coast Waterfront Strike, soon sparked a sympathy strike from sailors and then a general strike in San Francisco that shut down the city for four days and culminated with "Bloody Thursday".

On Thursday, July 5th, the owners tried to forcibly open the ports. Police fired tear gas into the crowd of picketers, then charged in on horseback where they were met with rocks and spent gas canisters. Both sides retreated and regrouped several times. In the evening, after strikers tipped over a squad car, police opened fire, killing a striker and sympathizer. July 5th remains a holiday for West Coast longshoremen to this day.

The strike was a watershed event in labor history. The West Coast longshoremen, under the leadership of Harry Bridges, split from the more conservative, East Coast-based International Longshoremen’s Association and formed the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).

The strike, along with similar strikes in Minneapolis and Toledo that year, also helped to bring about the Congress of Industrial Organizations.

While unions have seen their clout wane in recent years, the ILWU remains a potent force for labor and often a thorn in the side for the ruling class. In 2002, they forced Bush to invoke the dreaded Taft-Hartley Act to force an end to a union slow down and this past May Day they stayed home to protest the War.

A big part of the reason that the ILWU can ensure a high standard of living for its members and maintain its often militant independence is that it doesn’t face the same threats as many unionized workers -- you can’t move ports oversees. Or can you?

The ILWU’s strike of 1971 brought the union face-to-face with a new reality of the modern world – containers. Container shipping made it easier to simply transfer US-bound cargo to ports in Canada or Mexico, where they could be unloaded and trucked to the US.

The union won a partial victory in the strike, however, because Canadian ILWU longshoremen refused to unload ships heading for the US and American teamsters refused to ship goods from Mexican ports.

But Rome marches on.

A provision of NAFTA requires that all roads in the US, Mexico and Canada are open to truckers from all three nations. Because of opposition by teamsters and many in Congress, the full implementation of this provision was delayed for several years. (In 2001 Bush vetoed, incredibly, a bill that would require Mexican trucks to meet the same safety standards as American and Canadian trucks). While Canadian trucks were allowed full access to American highways, Mexican trucks were limited to within twenty miles of the border. Loads destined beyond this area were transferred to American trucks.

In September of last year, the Bush Administration launched a one-year pilot program to allow full access for Mexican trucks. The Senate immediately voted to withhold money need for the program from the Department of Transportation.

The use of Mexican truckers will, of course, result in huge savings for shippers. This passage from the investment website, seekingalpha.com, gives you a good idea:

The average US driver earns $.40 per mile, while the average. Mexican driver earns $.18 per mile. Based on 2007 results, I estimate that CLDN (a shipping company ~ eds) could realize a maximum of roughly $25 million annually by using all Mexican drivers for freight originating in Mexico. Even if CLDN is only able to recognize half of the potential savings, a $12.5m perpetuity discounted by their cost of capital (~12%) is worth $104m which, compared to the market cap of $218m, is significant.

But beside the immediate impact to the earning power of American (or even Canadian) truckers, is the long-term impact on longshoremen and the ILWU.

The Kansas City SmartPort is a state-of-the-art transshipment hub located in the heart of North America. The SmartPort is at the center of rail lines and highways that spread to all North American ports, including the recently upgraded port of Lazaro Cardenas (which has an exclusive rail access with Kansas City Southern Railroad) and the planned Punta Colonet in Mexico.

Nobody, save a few nuts who endlessly worry about "American sovereignty", expects teamsters and ILWU’ers to be supplanted overnight. But the implementation of NAFTA and the slow motion re-orientation of our nations shipment grid – away from coastal cities, to Mexico and up through Texas should give every working person pause.

Please drop the author a line at the original story here. As the anniversary of Bloody Thursday moves closer, remember that the rights of our port and dock workers were won through bitter and bloody confrontation. I honor that sacrifice today, and every day.

Read More...

I got an e-mail from my old local in Cleveland (I’m on the mailing list). They were sending us info from FLEXNEWS

Hershey announced a 3-year restructuring plan on 15 February 2007 to save up to USD 190 million a year. The company said that, under the restructuring, 1,500 jobs could be cut.

The company intends to transfer Reading production activities (York Peppermint Patties and 5th Avenue bars) to Monterrey, Mexico, before the end of 2008.

According to Teamsters’ General President Jim Hoffa, the Hershey plant move to Mexico shows how trade deals like NAFTA harm American workers. He said that about 260 workers at the plant will lose their jobs.

“These so-called trade deals are killing American jobs … They aren’t about trade, they’re about helping companies move their factories to countries with cheaper labor”, said Hoffa in a recent statement.

I’m not sure if Flexnews missed some of the point of the move or if it was IBT. Like the info I’ve posted on Kongsberg, these companies aren’t only moving for labor costs, they move for lower environmental standards and a lower tax rate for the company. They move for fewer regulatory requirements and because they don’t have to provide benefits (or fewer) to their employees. They move because they can work folks longer and not pay them more. They move because we have Free Trade agreements that gut our entire system of providing for workers, the environment, government services, and goodness knows what else.

I actually don’t buy Hershey’s because they insist on using cocoa harvested using slave labor in West Africa, specifically children in Côte d'Ivoire. This is just one more reason to continue to boycott Hershey’s, for using slave labor abroad and turning their employees out on the street here.

All in all, this is what Free Trade gets us. So, not only how does this benefit us, but explain to me how more pollution, low pay and few if any benefits actually is in the best interest of Mexico or in Kongsberg’s case, Poland?

Read More...

I confess, I haven't been following this story and now, I'm pissed at my own malfeasance, Dirtdiggers have the story:

The safety threats from outsourcing have also been cited for years by the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (FAA’s parent agency). A 2003 report by the IG found that major carriers were outsourcing some 47 percent of their total maintenance costs. The IG’s examination of conditions at a sample of repair stations used in the outsourcing found that 86 percent had “discrepancies” such as the use of improper parts and equipment and outdated manuals. A 2005 follow-up report found that the majors had upped the outsourced portion of their maintenance spending to 53 percent, with Southwest well above the average at 64 percent (see page 8).

Last June, the IG told Congress that the majors were now spending 64 percent of their maintenance dollars on contractors. He went on to point to the “challenges” facing the FAA in dealing with the continuing growth of outsourcing, including the fact that it did not have a good system for assigning its inspectors. But the agency told the IG it was addressing the problem—by commissioning a study from…a contractor.

Hit up the Phil Mattera post for all the latest links to reports. But as a primer on the scandal, United Press International has a brief note

Southwest was found to have allowed dozens of jets to fly beyond the date structural inspections were due.

The FAA fined the airline $10.2 million last week, but two FAA inspectors have charged that FAA officials had told them to back away from earlier notification that the airline's maintenance program had lapsed.

Southwest suspended three employees Wednesday.

And, from the Dallas Morning News:

The fine would be the largest ever levied against an airline, the FAA said.

When Southwest belatedly conducted the inspections, it found cracks in the bodies of six Boeing 737-300s, with the largest measuring 4 inches. Serious fractures can depressurize an aircraft and in 1988 caused an Aloha Airlines jet to rip apart, killing a flight attendant.

The FAA announced the fine a week before congressional investigators were to disclose findings from their own inquiry into Southwest's failure to meet airworthiness directives. That investigation was prompted by information provided by Dallas-based FAA inspectors who said their supervisors allowed the planes to keep flying even after Southwest reported its failure to make the scheduled inspections.

Did you see the bolded text? Let me repeat that:

That investigation was prompted by information provided by Dallas-based FAA inspectors who said their supervisors allowed the planes to keep flying even after Southwest reported its failure...

Now, if that isn't a kick in the pants, perhaps this might bring it hom, again, from the same piece:

Too many FAA supervisors have grown cozy with airline managers, Ms. Goodrich said. Inspectors are second-guessed if they highlight a costly problem that airlines don't want to address, she said [Linda Goodrich, a regional vice president for the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union].

Does anyone really believe it's a good idea for big business to police itself, or for that matter, to work with the inspectors who are there to police them? Seriously? Now, I also want to point out that no one should worry their pretty little heads about the inspectors who wanted better oversight, FAA dealt with them:

Mr. Boutris was removed from duty as he was investigated last year, according to Frank Gentile, an official with Mr. Boutris' union in Fort Worth. Mr. Gentile said the investigation was retaliatory for pushing the issue of how FAA managers dealt with Southwest.

"He was the inspector and found the issues with Southwest Airlines and went to report it to his appropriate supervisor," Mr. Gentile said. "He was told to back off."

Hmm, retalitory behavior, what a freaking surprise! But honestly, what would you expect from the leadership of the Department of Transportation. I mean, we are talking about the stewardship of Secretary Mary Peters. Of course, I really think her "stewardship" is more along the lines of a continued blatant disregard for anything other than big business, 24-7, safety be damned.

You can catch up on this issue through MSNBC's recent report.

Read More...

Well, really this is more about TeamsterPower. I've had the pleasure of meeting him and talking to him about union issues. He totally rocks. I try to keep up on anything he posts on all the diary based sites, but things do fall through the cracks. For instance, I missed his recent post on Dailykos which detailed why every union worker should vote for Obama.

He opens with

Two words: Replacement workers.

And it just gets even better after that...

Permanent replacements have been around since 1938 when the Supreme Court said in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. that a company does not have to reinstate "economic strikers" if it hired strikebreakers to continue the business. Now, for you business majors out there, that may sound well and good. Why should I rehire a worker who went on strike for a raise if I can find someone to do the job for less money? Why? Because it's fair. It's the right thing to do. Because many times, these workers have sacrificed to make your business a success and when it succeeds they should be rewarded, not treated like draft animals or machines.

Consider the workers at Diamond Walnut in Stockton, Calif. In 1985 Diamond was facing bankruptcy and turned to its workers for help. The workers, Teamsters from Local Union 601, agreed to take pay cuts of up to 40% to help the company weather the tough times.

By 1991 Diamond had reached the Fortune 500 and bragged of record profits. But instead of giving those profits back to its employees, the company demanded more concessions.

On Sept. 4, 1991, the workers went on strike -- a fight that would last 14 years only because Diamond was prepared. As soon as the strike was called the company began hiring replacement workers.

I hated Diamond, but I really loved how the workers on strike for 14 years were able to work with the scabs and bring both groups into the same union. More from TeamsterPower on Diamond Walnuts and supporting Obama.

But today, Barack Obama is the only presidential candidate left who supports a ban on permanent replacement workers. (Edwards also supported such a ban.)

If you value your union, if you value the right to collective bargaining, if you value the labor movement, then you will vote for Barack Obama. The Employee Free Choice Act is important. Renegotiating NAFTA and stopping other trade agreements that sell out working Americans is important. But if workers continue to be denied the right to strike, they lose the ability to fight for economic justice. Unions must organize more and more workers to exceed losses. And what value is solidarity if you're all unemployed?

The members of Local 601 are heroes. They took a stand on principal and through ingenuity and perseverance actually succeeded in a situation where most strikers fail.

After more than a year of crossing the picket line, the replacements realized they were Diamond's pawns. See, even "permanent" replacement workers can be fired at will without a union contract to protect them. They voted with the strikers for union representation with the Teamsters. The workers turned the tables on Diamond.

Having followed the Diamond strike (yep, I really am that girl, surprise surprise!!), I knew everything that he wrote about, but I couldn't put it so eloquently.

So, way to go TeamsterPower!

And, here's hoping today's voting reminds every union household out there who has always supported worker's rights (read UNITE-HERE's endorsement for more on that) through actions and not dissing workers by sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.

Read More...

So, that is now UNITE-HERE, UFCW, SEIU and now the Teamsters. Only the UFW has endorsed Clinton from the Change to Win unions. I suppose they take their name seriously, huh? We really do need to Change to Win, change the party, change the way we organize, change the way we look at the country and our foreign policy. (BTW, it's CNN that broke the story for me, no link yet)

Change, it's a powerful thing.

UPDATED, here's the link.

I love my old union!!

Read More...

There's a new blog up targeting issues related to NAFTA and trucks from Mexico entering the US despite the drivers and owners of the trucks not meeting US standards.

http://firemarypeters.wordpress.com/

Read More...

I read through the comments on Firedoglake today. They've been posting some pieces on the writers strike and more importantly, the return of the Colbert Report and the Daily Show. Then I read this comment

Christy Hardin Smith

Stewart and Colbert have contracts which are currently in force, and they have production obligations as well. If they didn’t go back on, they could (a) be fired, (b) have their shows cancelled meaning everyone else would lose their jobs, (c) get sued, and (d) get blackballed by the studio system meaning they couldn’t get more jobs for others working for their shows in the future. The writers currently do not have active contracts — they expired, and the studios didn’t re-up with the writers under the terms proposed, which is why there is a strike.

Talent and writers are two separate categories in terms of contracts here. As are producers and directors.

True, talent and writers are two different things. But, perhaps a better example would be how Dock Workers and Truckers are two different things.

Dock workers are most often represented by the ILWU, The International Longshoreman and Warehouse union. Truckers, well, they are most often Teamsters.

I know, I know, what the F$%k am I talking about? I'm getting to it...

Years and years ago, when workers went on strike they had power in their numbers. Not just the strikers numbers but in combination with their brother and sister unions. It's a term affectionately dubbed "secondary boycotts."

A secondary boycott is where workers set up a picket line with the intention of stopping everyone from entering. The link has a good example of this and here's some of the text:

On the morning of the picketing, two gates had signs stating that the seating contractor and its employees, suppliers and visitors were prohibited from using those entrances. A third gate was labeled as being exclusively for the seating contractor, its employees, suppliers and visitors. Because the signs did not specifically mention the seating subcontractor – the announced target of the picketing – union members picketed all three gates, not just the one reserved for the seating contractor. All work on the project was shut down because other union members refused to cross the picket line.

The seating subcontractor's name was added to the signs four days later, and the union stopped picketing at those gates not meant for the seating contractor and subcontractor. The day after the signs were changed, all other unions returned to work. One day later, the union stopped picketing after a letter arrived from its national headquarters advising that the strike was affecting a union contractor with a no-strike clause. At no time during the strike did the union encourage its members to return to work.

The concrete contractor sued the union, alleging injuries from the secondary boycott and a violation of the no-strike clause in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky held the union liable and awarded damages. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability, affirmed the award of certain damages and reversed the denial of other damages. F.A. Wilhelm Construction Co. v. Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters, 293 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2002)

Okay, so what I'm talking about here is when workers set up a picket line to protest unfair owner-business practices and other unions who have workers at the same location abide by the picket line.

So, lets say the Teamsters are protesting Federal Express and have set up a picket line to prevent scab federal express workers and their rats (could be bosses or non-union co-workers) from getting to work or at least cross the line. So, to support this effort, the longshoreman refuse to cross the teamster picket line and unload a Federal Express shipment. This would be a secondary boycott. If more unions join into this, it's also frequently called a General Strike.

So, let's go back to Christy's comment,

Stewart and Colbert have contracts which are currently in force, and they have production obligations as well. If they didn’t go back on, they could
(a) be fired,
(b) have their shows cancelled meaning everyone else would lose their jobs,
(c) get sued, and
(d) get blackballed by the studio system meaning they couldn’t get more jobs for others working for their shows in the future....

Perhaps a little labor history is in order for the Progressive Ms. Hardin Smith. Let's start with Longshoreman Paul Heide:

PAUL HEIDE

...During the L.A. Spring Co. strike for recognition in 1936, I got a telephone call to come out right away. I drove out and parked directly across the street from the Oakland plant. It had to be a frame-up. The police wanted me out there so they could work me over. Those were the days when they had an anti-picketing ordinance. They did away with it later. Captain Brown was in charge of the Oakland Police Department’s Eastern Office Division. He hated labor organizers.

Anyway, there were two cops in front of the L.A. Spring plant. One of them walked over when I parked. He said, “You can’t park here.” I said, “Why not?” He said, “Because Captain Brown says so.” I said, “Well, screw Captain Brown!” He took out his club and almost broke my arm he hit it so hard.

“Get out of the car,” he said. I stepped out and he hit me in the back. I knew he was trying to get me to do something so I could be charged. He said, “What are you coming out here, starting trouble for?” He took his club and punched me in the rib cage. I’d trained as a boxer and I hit him by automatic reflex before I realized it. I punched his teeth and cut a hole right through his lower lip. Then the other cop stepped behind me and hit me over the head, and split my scalp open. I was bleeding all over.

They took me to Highland Hospital and put me in one of those barred rooms. They charged me with resisting arrest and battery. I had a trial in Municipal Court and the jury found me guilty of battery but not guilty of resisting arrest. If you can make those two things fit together—I’ve never been able to understand how they figured that out. ...we won the beef, got the contract, and were satisfied

Colbert and Stewart face the same sanctions as everyone else who supports a strike. Heide was beaten and jailed basically for organizing. Sure, they can a) be fired,
(b) have their shows cancelled, (c) get sued, and (d) get blackballed, but how is that any different than any other worker out there? The problem is that it isn't.

The reason I'm so pissed at the two men I held in such high regard, Colbert and Stewart, is that they don't seem to understand what we all risk when involved in a strike. Perhaps Bill Ward can describe what I mean a little better:

Before the 1934 strike longshoring was all heavy, hand-handled work, and the men were fighting the speed-up at every turn. After those 12 and 18 hour shifts some longshoremen would go to the Robel Inn, a transit hotel in San Pedro where I used to deliver papers. They'd be completely exhausted. They'd sleep eight, ten, 12 hours. It was usually a day and a half or two before they were ready to go again. One time I went down there to deliver my papers and five or six longshoremen were getting rubdowns. They had hot steam towels they'd wring out and put on. Their legs were all sore and bruised.

....
I really didn't realize what the hell was going on until after the shock of the killing of longshoremen during the 1934 strike. That was a clear recollection I could identify with. I knew many longshoremen. Their kids were in my age group and we hung around together. So that was an impact that really started me to be aware of what my father was up against.

I've written here about what happens to latino women who work at Smithfield. How they are hired for less pay to replace black women at the same factory. And after they replace those women, the plant has spread rumors about INS coming to check papers. This usually causes groups to be out from the jobs but it also ensures they can keep their workers down by basically telling them, do what we say for what we pay you and don't unionize or we'll tell the INS about you, your friends, your family and anyone we just think might be connected to you. It's called intimidation.

So, how do these longshoremen stories or my stories about Smithfield even come close to describing what it is that Colbert and Stewart are doing? It's because, they risk no more for themselves, their families or the workers who depend on the jobs on their shows than any other union member who makes the decision not to cross a picket line.

As members of WGA, Leno, Stewart, Maher and O'Brien are saying not simply to their writers that they are thinking of themselves first but they are also telling everyone who works for them that they too won't be supported if push comes to shove.

Colbert and Stewart, push has come to shove and the two of you, like Christy Hardin Smith, just don't seem to get it. People like Heid and Ward fought for your right to set up a picket line. What does your crossing it say about their sacrifice?

Read More...