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 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...