Lessons From Chattanooga

As I watched the situation at the Volkswagon plant unfold last night, I was in a state of not so utter disbelief.  I am from Texas, and have a lifetime of experience watching people vote against their own self interest.  While last night was a tough one to swallow for the labor movement, I believe their are some valuable lessons from this defeat that can be applied to future attempts at southern organizing.

I believe that labor organizations have a complete fundamental lack of understanding of southern culture that has been a major obstacle in attempts to organize there.  Often, labor does not understand that the only experience that many southerners have with unions are the hyperbolic, cartoonish mob influenced figures seen in movies.  This is exacerbated when unions have out of state staff run organizing campaigns.  I've previously proposed the salting approach at Wal-Mart, but every time I see a failed organizing drive in the south I am more convinced that salting might be the only approach outside of the Employee Free Choice Act(EFCA) that will work.

Speaking of EFCA, the loss at VW might be the best example you'll ever see on why labor must focus its attention on passing EFCA.  In Chattanooga, you had a situation in which the employer was fairly neutral.  And by neutral, I mean that they did not run a viscous anti-union campaign.  Although they did not recognize the union via card-check, they were much more friendly than you usually see, especially in the south.  Even with somewhat friendly management, without card-check, politicians and outside groups were able to influence the election. 

We are allowed to enter into legal contracts by signing our names on everything from gym memberships, to buying a house.  Why are we as workers not allowed to do the same when it comes to joining a union?  This system of double jeopardy when it comes to forcing unions to organize twice, while allowing corporations and politicians several months to scare people into voting against their own self interest has to stop, and EFCA could do just that.    I just don't see a logical path forward for the American labor movement without substantial labor reform.  The system is that broken.

I spoke to my stepfather, Scott Noon, who worked at the GM plant in Spring Hill, TN that is represented by UAW.  He was saddened by the loss in Chattanooga, and thought that the heavy-handed anti-union stance taken by local and state politicians played a big part in the result of the election.  He also believed that Senator Bob Corker was likely pressured by Grover Norquist and other top GOP donors into taking a public stance against the union. "Nobody looks out for the little guy anymore," he added.  "It's all about the big money and corporations." 

Can unions win in the south?  I still believe they can, but it will take combined legislative and social change to make it happen, and it could take a little while.  Don't give up on us yet.

In Solidarity,

Joseph Riedel

Initiation Fees And Bad First Impressions

As I previously mentioned, I recently became a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters(IBT) Local 830.  After one of my union brothers mentioned that there was an initiation fee, I began asking around to find out why the fee was assessed, and how much I would be charged.  Unfortunately, nobody seemed to have an answer for either question.

I actually knew the answer to the question of why the fee is assessed - at least in theory.  Initiation fees have been used in the past to fund member benefit funds.  Historically, they were specifically used to fund decedent benefits for members' surviving spouses and dependents.  In current times, the money is usually just funneled into the general expense fund.

This experience got me to thinking, why do unions still assess this fee?  Many unions do not charge an initiation fee, and a lot of those who still do have lowered the fee to a nominal amount around $20.  But is charging an initiation fee still a good idea?

Consider the following scenario:

You have been out of work for some time, and are excited to find a job, and it is covered by a union contract.  You've never worked anywhere that had a union before, but you've heard they provide better wages and working conditions.  You work hard to make a good impression, and can't wait for your first paycheck.  Because you've been out of work for a while, bills have piled up, and you've calculated how much money you'll make and what bills you need to pay with it.

Then you receive your paycheck, and you notice it's a couple hundred dollars smaller than you think it should be by your calculation.  You go see the payroll department, and they explain that the union has assessed you a $200 initiation fee.  

What kind of first impression do you think that would make on someone who has never been in a union before?  In times like these when unions are already fighting an uphill battle with mobilization and trying to battle apathetic membership, why would they still charge new members who are likely already financially strapped an extra charge in a closed shop?

I must have a mea culpa moment here.  I believe I criticized AFGE's practice of giving new members a $50 bonus for joining the union.  After considering the initiation fees charged by some unions, I have to say that AFGE might have the right approach.  I still remember the $50 bill the shop steward gave me when I filled out my union card at AFGE, and I'll surely remember the $200 the Teamsters are taking on top of my regular dues(which are pretty high as well).

The question for unions is:  Which memory do you want members to have? 

In Solidarity,

Joseph Riedel

Back in the Bargaining Unit for 2014

A lot happened over my Christmas hiatus this year.  I transferred into a job classification that is covered by our collective bargaining unit, which means I am once again a rank-and-file hell raiser.

Thus far in my working career, I have been a member of The Association of Pizza Delivery Drivers(may they rest in peace), American Federation of Government Employees(Locals 2437, 2798, and 17) and a charter member/elected officer of Staff Union 1199 while I was an organizer.  Management at SEIU 1199 WV/KY/OH recently ran a successful campaign to decertify their own staff union(how's that for leading by example), but that's a story for a separate blog post.  You can now add Teamster to that list.  As of 12/16/13, I am a dues paying member of IBT, Local 830.

Now I just need to get a hold of the folks with the Teamsters for a Democratic Union(TDU).

Lots of stuff to cover in this new year.  Professional Pension Hunters. Steve Early's latest.  Maybe my own book by the end of the year. Labor Notes Conference.

Stay Tuned.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Save Our Unions

Whenever I get a chance to alert people to a new publication that I believe is important to the future of the labor movement, I try to take it. Allow me to recommend Save Our Unions. 

Save Our Unions is the forthcoming book by veterans labor journalist Steve Early.  Early is a longtime labor activist, former staffer of many years with the Communication Workers of America, as well as the author of Embedded With Organized Labor, and Civil Wars in U.S. Labor.

In Save Our Unions, Early explores the history and future of rank-and-file movements in the labor movement as a whole, expounding on his thorough coverage of the rank-and-file struggle against SEIU in California in Civil Wars.

I've been perusing the advanced preview I was fortunate enough to get my hands on(one of the few perks in this labor of love) and I simply cannot wait until it hits the shelves.  Save Our Unions will be a godsend to any activist member, reformer, or anyone who just wants their union to act like a union and not just a lighter version of management.  This book will light a fire under you and get you ready to take your union back!

Until Save Our Unions hits the shelves, I recommend checking out Steve Early's last two books that are must reads for anyone who cares about the labor movement. You can find them here:

http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Civil-Wars-in-US-Labor

http://embeddedwol.blogspot.com/

In Solidarity,

Joseph Riedel

Shutdown...or Lockout?

We are now into week two of the full blown circus that is the government shutdown of 2013.  For some 800,000 federal employees who are being furloughed, there is another word for this situation: lockout.

lock·out

[lok-out] Show IPA

noun

the temporary closing of a business or the refusal by an employer to allow employees to come to work until they accept the employer's terms.

The only difference between this situation, and the definition from our friends at dictionary.com is that the federal employees do not have the means to accept the employer's terms.  This is because they are being kept off the job by a few dozen extremists in the House of Representatives who do not care about the livelihood of 800,000 people.

The American Federation of Government Employees(AFGE) is the largest of the labor organizations representing about 300,000 dues paying members.  While AFGE President J. David Cox has made some media appearances, and there have been a few rallies on the Hill, AFGE has not yet started treating this like the lockout that it is.

In most cases, when unions are locked out by management, they immediately set up a picket line and pull out all the stops to force an end to the stalemate.  So far, there have been a few small rallies and a membership drive that allows members to earn a $100 rebate for signing up new members.  While I'm all about membership drives, and was active in them during my years as an AFGE member, perhaps a more militant, in your face approach might be appropriate given the task at hand.

My good friend, Bill Preston, President of AFGE Local 17, is spearheading a rally this Friday.  Here is the pertinent information:

Join Local 17 of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) for a Rally at the Capitol to Protest the Government Shutdown and Support your Fellow Workers

When: Friday, October 11, 2013 from 12:00 Noon until 3:00 PM

Where: The West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building  The attached map from the U.S. Capitol Police gives the exact location: It is the demonstration permit area marked # 1.

Who: All Federal employees* and their friends and families and allies, including veterans (Local 17 represents workers at the VA's Central Office)

Bring any homemade signs to express to Congress your feelings about the shutdown.

I've applied for a permit to hold the Rally.  

* Federal employees may attend this Rally if they are:

- in a furlough status;

- taking annual leave; or

- attending during their regular 30-minute lunch period.

Please note that furlough–exempted employees (those still working due to continued funding) should take annual leave if they plan to attend for longer than the 30-minute lunch period.  Furlough–excepted employees cannot take annual leave, but may still attend during their regular lunch period.

Come help make this a successful Rally!!  We look forward to seeing you on Friday!!

 
If you are in DC and are able to attend, please do so in solidarity with those who are furloughed.  This rally is an excellent start, and I would like to see a more proactive push from the AFGE national leadership.  Let's set up some picket lines and burn barrels near the Capitol and House office buildings.  It's time to take the fight to them and put some real pressure on them to stop this insanity.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

 

The Labor Movement's 1%?

Amid the speeches and rallies at the AFL-CIO Convention this past week in Los Angeles, there were many resolutions passed, as well as a handful of amendments to the AFL-CIO constitution.  Most of the resolution and amendments were what you would expect from a labor convention.  There were resolutions opposing efforts to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as one supporting the American Labor Museum.  There was also an amendment recognizing the role of young workers with a seat on the Executive Board.

Then there was Constitutional Amendment 11.

Here is the amendment in its entirety:

Submitted by the Executive Council

 Referred to the Constitution Committee

Article V, Section 5 is amended as follows (New language in bold and italics)
Section 5

(a) The President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Executive Vice President, or any one of them, after having served five years as an Executive Officer of the Federation and either having reached age 65 or having served in any capacity a total of 20 years with any organization affiliated with the Federation, and/or with the Federation, shall, upon leaving office, have the title of President Emeritus or Emerita, Secretary-Treasurer Emeritus or Emerita and Executive Vice President Emeritus or Emerita and shall render such service to the Federation in an advisory and consultative status as is mutually agreed to by the Executive Council and the emeritus or emerita officer.

(b) The President Emeritus or Emerita, Secretary-Treasurer Emeritus or Emerita and Executive Vice President Emeritus or Emerita shall, in consideration of their active service prior to leaving office, be afforded for life a pension, payable weekly, in an annual amount equal to 60 percent of either the highest annual salary received as an Executive Officer or thereafter paid to the corresponding Executive Officer, whichever is greater. If, after attaining eligibility for this pension, such Executive Officer shall die, either before or after receiving such pension, the Officer’s surviving spouse shall be paid an annual annuity for life, payable in weekly installments, of 30 percent of either the highest salary received by such Executive Officer, as an Executive Officer, or thereafter paid to the corresponding Executive Officer, whichever is greater. The Executive Council is authorized and directed to enter into a legal and binding agreement with the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, and the Executive Vice President to make these retirement compensation and annuity benefits payable by the Federation for their intended duration pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. The Executive Council is also authorized to provide, after such benefits become non-forfeitable, for (1) the cash-out of a portion of these retirement compensation and annuity benefits (through accelerated payment of the present value thereof) where the officer will be subject to taxes on the value of benefits not yet otherwise payable, and (2) appropriate arrangements, including payment by the Federation, for payment of employment taxes attributable to these retirement compensation and annuity benefits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executive Council is authorized to modify or eliminate the benefits provided in this section. 

When I first read this amendment, I didn't really think anything of it.  After all, I am all in favor of pensions, as just about anyone in the labor movement is.  The crisis around Social Security has far more to do with companies reneging on employee pensions than it does about baby boomers - but I digress.

When I really started to dig into the language of this amendment, I began to realize just how tone deaf the leadership of the labor movement has become.  The amendment awards pension in the amount of 60% of the officeholder's highest grossing year after 5 years on the Executive Council, or 20 years with any affiliated labor organization.  This also increases any time a current officeholder's salary is increased in order to keep up with inflation.

This happens to work out great for Richard Trumka, who served three terms as the president of the United Mine Workers of America(UMWA).  Given his length of time as an officer with UMWA, he almost certainly is eligible to draw a pension from that organization.  Now he is eligible to draw a pension from the AFL-CIO that as of 2012 would pay him an estimated $166,000 annually for life.

It works out even better for Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler.  According to the amendment, an officer becomes eligible for the lifetime pension when they either reach retirement age, or their total service time with affiliated labor organizations reaches 20 years.  Guess which year Liz Shuler took her first staff job with the IBEW?  That's right, 1993.  I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but you have to admit that's one hell of a coincidence.  I'm 33, and Ms. Shuler is not all that much older than I am.  She could decide to leave the AFL-CIO tomorrow, and under this new amendment, she would collect roughly $146,000 a year.  This is remarkable since she easily has 15-20 years before she is retirement age.

At a time when the AFL-CIO is out railing against the 1%(and rightfully so) and the inequality of wealth in the workplace, it seems unfathomable that they would pick this moment to make the divide between the rank and file union member and their leadership even wider.  To do so in such a public fashion is even more stunning.  This sort of excess harms the labor movement and does little to dispel feelings among the average worker that their union leadership is out of touch with the day-to-day struggle in the shop.

The bottom line is that while there shouldn't be an issue with our leaders being fairly compensated - that's what we're fighting for after all - but it should be done in a common sense way that is not excessive.  

Maybe next convention someone will have the good sense to introduce an amendment inspired by the United Electrical Workers(UE) that restricts the salary of the national president to the same level of the highest dues paying member.  Given the diversity of the workers in the house of labor, they'd still be doing pretty well for themselves.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

AFL-CIO Proposed Resolutions

The 2013 AFL-CIO Convention is underway in Los Angeles, and I decided to peruse the proposed resolutions, as well as proposed amendments to the AFL-CIO Constitution.

Here are some of my favorites:

Resolution 5, which just passed, co-opts the IWW method of growing membership to organize the unorganized.  This would extend AFL-CIO membership to all workers, even if they are not yet working under a collective bargaining agreement.

Constitutional Amendment 1, which would add a Young Workers' Representative to the AFL-CIO Executive Board.

Then there's Constitutional Amendment 2 & 3.  Amendment 2 is the Machinists' Union(IAM) complaining about Raider Unions, which made me think, "Pot, meet the kettle."  Amendment 3 is an amendment to reaffirm that Article XX(anti-raiding) will not be applied to non-affiliated unions. Paranoid much?

Let's see what else comes up.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

What It Means To Be The Only Non-Union Employees in a Union Environment

I thought about this entry on Monday, but I'm just getting the chance to post it.  The reason for this is that I was working on Labor Day, along with the other employees in my department.  We happened to be the only employees in the plant who were required to work.  We are also the only department that is not in the bargaining unit.

While working Monday didn't really bother me(I consider May 1st to be the real Labor Day), it did get me thinking about the other differences between the employees in the bargaining unit, and my department.

There are the obvious holidays that we do not get to enjoy spending with family and friends.  We also do not follow seniority when it comes to open job promotions, or bidding on our routes.  We were also the only employees in the plant who did not have their cost of living increases retrograded, which meant a few hundred dollars to most of us.  We also do not ever get weekend days off unless we are on vacation.  This is despite the fact that there are enough of us to rotate weekend duty so that everyone gets one weekend day a month off.

Then there is the most important issue - Job Security.

There have been several people in the bargaining unit who have lost their jobs over questionable evidence, and nearly all of them have been awarded their jobs back with back pay by arbitrators.  Our department has had four employees terminated in the last six months.  While the evidence was much stronger in some cases over others, none of the employees was allowed to have the chance to have their day in court.

In contrast, my job classification in a nearby plant happens to be in the bargaining unit.
What are the differences between those employees and us?

For starters, they make $3.13 more an hour than we do, which is a direct result of their contract negotiations.  Secondly, they can bid on their routes using seniority, which means your loyalty to the company is rewarded by giving you first choice of your job assignments.  They also rotate weekend assignments, and had their cost of living increase retrograded.  Most importantly, they have the right to grieve any adverse action taken by management against them.
 
So when I think of what it means to be union(which I have been in the past) and non-union(what I am now), the difference is crystal clear:

Lower Pay, Less Fairness, No Job Security.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Change to Win - An Island of Two?

Mike Elk scored a huge scoop this past weekend, reporting that UFCW will vote to rejoin the AFL-CIO after its upcoming convention in August.

You can read Mike's full story at In These Times.

When I covered LIUNA's decision to return to the AFL-CIO back in 2010, I interviewed James Williams, President of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades(IUPAT) to get his opinion on LIUNA's return.  One of my main inquiries was regarding whether the AFL-CIO should require LIUNA to pay back per capita as a condition of rejoining the federation.  My feeling back then was that not requiring some form of repayment would make it attractive for unions to leave the federation to avoid per capita for a time if they ran into financial trouble.  The union could then hypothetically rejoin the AFL-CIO without any penalty.

As Mike Elk reports in his story,

Details of the negotiations between the UFCW and AFL-CIO are unknown at this time. However, inside sources say the AFL-CIO is likely to offer the UFCW some sort of deal, such as a discount on dues, as motivation to rejoin.

I understand that having UFCW back in the fold is more important o the AFL-CIO than some back per capita taxes, but it doesn't exactly set a good precedent going forward.

The larger implication for the labor movement is that Change to Win can't really be looked at as a labor coalition or federation anymore.  However, I am floating a few new name ideas for the two remaining unions.  How about Steamsters, or SEI-2.  They could make t-shirts saying Purple and Black Attack.

Although the return of UFCW will certainly get people wondering if SEIU and the Teamsters will rejoin the AFL-CIO, I don't foresee that happening any time soon, with different reasons for each organization.

The departure of the Teamsters was almost entirely about two things: 1) money and 2)money. Also 3)Article 20.  The Teamsters are in deep with their pension plan, and I don't see them willingly adding more per capita taxes when they don't even have a way to pay for their own pension fund 20 years from now.  They also still like to raid other unions, which Article 20 prohibits.  It would be something to see the Machinists and Teamsters under the same roof again.

I could actually picture SEIU coming back to the AFL-CIO before the Teamsters.  SEIU has the money for per capita, and rejoining the AFL-CIO could be used as a strategic way of blocking the National union of Healthcare Workers(NUHW) from organizing more members, as NUHW is now affiliated with CNA, and therefore subject to Article 20, which prohibits raiding other AFL-CIO member unions.

However this hashes out, this will be an interesting year in the House of Labor.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

The Massive Motor City Union Busting Scheme

This afternoon, Detroit became the largest city in the history of the United States to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy.  The city had been the subject of a hostile takeover by Republican Governor Rick Snyder, who appointed Kevin Orr, a bankruptcy expert, to rescue the city from massive deficits.

Why would you hire a bankruptcy expert to turn a city's finances around?

The obvious answer to that question is that someone doesn't want the city to recover. The who in this question becomes a little clearer once you find out that Governor Rick Snyder is a venture capitalist.  And what are venture capitalists experts in? Bankrupting companies and selling off their assets.

The purpose of this action could not be any clearer:

This is the biggest, most blatant union busting stunt since PATCO, and it might even be bigger. In filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, the state would be able to sell off the city's assets, renege on pension obligations, and make labor agreements obsolete.  This isn't your average union busting scheme - this is the Twinkification of an entire city.

Make no mistake, if this is allowed to stand, you will see this in every major city with a strong collective bargaining presence. If the working class was waiting for a moment to get out in the streets with the pitchforks(well, not pitchforks, but pots and pans maybe) and raise nine kinds of hell, this is it.

We have to get in the streets and fight this battle.  We can't just throw money, or send email blasts, or send out our talking heads on cable news.  All of us - you, me, your buddy, my grandma, your pastor, the neighbors and their dog all have to get out in the streets and fight to keep the corporate vultures from imposing their will upon us. It's time for sit-ins, teach-ins, walk-outs, and anything else necessary to get the job done.

It has begun.

In Solidarity,

Joseph