Seattle ATU 587 Takes Party Of National Day Of Action For Public Transportation
APRIL 4 2012: National Day of Action for Public Transportation
The Amalgamated Transit Union 587 -- Union of Metro / King County transit workers -- will spearhead a day of action in Seattle to DEFEND PUBLIC TRANSIT. Their theme:
"Don't let your commute get thrown under the bus."
This action, in collaboration with the Seattle Transit Riders Union, begins at 11 AM AT 6TH AND ROYAL BROUGHAM (near Safeco Stadium and the-3 busway). Participants will "occupy a bus" (or buses and trains) and travel to downtown for a rally at Westlake (4th and Pine.) From there participants will leaflet buses. Please join Union transit workers, and bus riders to help defend public transit. This is part of a national day of action called by International ATU, and that includes the demand to STOP THE WAR, AND USE THE MONIES TO FUND PUBLIC TRANSIT AND OTHER VITAL PUBLIC SERVICES.
Across the U.S. public transit has suffered severe cutbacks andlayoffs -- even as gas prices rise, along with the need for expanded bus service. In Pierce and Snohomish Counties, transit service has been cut by more than 25 percent. In King County, fares have SKYROCKETED 80 PERCENT! in 4 years. THE ATTACK ON PUBLIC TRANSIT IS ANATTACK ON THE WORKING CLASS. This is an opportunity to push back. Please help forward and distribute the attached leaflet to your union, co-workers, friends, family. Spread the word. Let's say, TRANSPORTATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT! NO PRIVATIZATION, NO CUTS, NO FARE HIKES, NO EXCUSES! FUNDPUBLIC TRANSIT!
See you Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Organized Workers for Labor Solidarity OWLS@riseup.net
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Pension Liars and GOP Myths
So, what are we going to do about those big "fat pensions" collected by public employees?
You know, those retirement benefits that supposedly are threatening to bankrupt state and local governments everywhere. What to do? That's easy. We can make that problem disappear quickly – just like that! We need only realize that the problem simply does not exist, despite the claims by rabid anti-union forces and the many people who they've duped. Here's the basic situation: Anti-union forces are attempting to weaken the public employee defined pension plans that provide employees a specific monthly payment on retirement. The plans cover about five million older Americans, providing money that many drawing benefits very much need to escape poverty and stay off government assistance.
Those receiving the benefits, many at rates granted originally in lieu of pay raises, in turn create more than $358 billion in economic output nationwide and create more than 2.5 million jobs. State spending on pensions amounts to no more than 4 percent of the state budget, on average. In most states, employees must contribute up to 8 percent of their wages to their pension fund, a bit more than private employees contribute toward their pensions. You should also know that, despite what you may have heard, government pension funds are not going broke. They in fact have been growing as Wall Street has been doing better. Those basic facts and others that are often lost amid the anti-pension clamor from those on the political right who would just as soon do away entirely with pensions. But they were laid out clearly by panelists in a forum earlier this year sponsored by the National Public Pension Coalition.
Panelist Dean Baker, an economist who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), noted the concern that pensions are endangering government services stems from "a crisis that has been invented" by employer groups. Baker said the make-believe crisis stems largely from the 2008-09 market crash. That caused an estimated $800 billion of the $1 trillion shortfall in pension plans, but he said the plans should be able to recoup their losses. But what of the public employees supposedly drawing pensions of $100,000 a year, or even more? As panelists pointed out, they're pretty much make-believe, too. Then how much do they make? In New York, as another panelist, New York State Controller Thomas DiNapoli reported, the average pension, including those of police and firefighters, is just a little over $19,000 a year.
Three-quarters of New York's pensioners overall get less than $30,000 a year, and less than one-half of 1 percent get more than $100,000.
Panel member Janet Cowell, North Carolina's state treasurer, said the average pension in her state is a mere $22,000 a year. She said fewer than 300 retirees get $100,000-plus pensions – "and some of those are basketball coaches."
Rhode Island retiree Dolores Bresette, a voice from the trenches, as it were, told her unfortunately not uncommon story to the panel. She said "I worked for the State of Rhode Island for 37 years and contributed 9 percent of my salary to my pension fund. Now, after years of saving and preparing for my retirement, so much of what I and thousands of other public workers were promised is being taken away." That's because of last November's enactment of a "Retirement Security Act" which, among other things, suspended cost-of-living adjustments for Rhode Island retirees indefinitely."
There are real human implications of the current efforts to dismantle public workers' pension funds", Bresette declared, "and people in Washington and the country need to see that." She and other panelists warned that "in addition to the human implications there are serious social and economic consequences that will develop over the long term if the shift away from defined-benefit pensions continues. Instead of dismantling public employee retirement systems, policymakers should be working to improve retirement security for the private sector workforce.
Edited: for complete article, please go to www.dickmeister.com
(1)http://www.sfbg.com/bruce/2012/03/23/meister-its-not-true-what-they-say-about-pensions By Dick Meister, former labor editor of the SF Chronicle and KQED-TV Newsroom Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com, which includes more than 350 of his columns.
You know, those retirement benefits that supposedly are threatening to bankrupt state and local governments everywhere. What to do? That's easy. We can make that problem disappear quickly – just like that! We need only realize that the problem simply does not exist, despite the claims by rabid anti-union forces and the many people who they've duped. Here's the basic situation: Anti-union forces are attempting to weaken the public employee defined pension plans that provide employees a specific monthly payment on retirement. The plans cover about five million older Americans, providing money that many drawing benefits very much need to escape poverty and stay off government assistance.
Those receiving the benefits, many at rates granted originally in lieu of pay raises, in turn create more than $358 billion in economic output nationwide and create more than 2.5 million jobs. State spending on pensions amounts to no more than 4 percent of the state budget, on average. In most states, employees must contribute up to 8 percent of their wages to their pension fund, a bit more than private employees contribute toward their pensions. You should also know that, despite what you may have heard, government pension funds are not going broke. They in fact have been growing as Wall Street has been doing better. Those basic facts and others that are often lost amid the anti-pension clamor from those on the political right who would just as soon do away entirely with pensions. But they were laid out clearly by panelists in a forum earlier this year sponsored by the National Public Pension Coalition.
Panelist Dean Baker, an economist who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), noted the concern that pensions are endangering government services stems from "a crisis that has been invented" by employer groups. Baker said the make-believe crisis stems largely from the 2008-09 market crash. That caused an estimated $800 billion of the $1 trillion shortfall in pension plans, but he said the plans should be able to recoup their losses. But what of the public employees supposedly drawing pensions of $100,000 a year, or even more? As panelists pointed out, they're pretty much make-believe, too. Then how much do they make? In New York, as another panelist, New York State Controller Thomas DiNapoli reported, the average pension, including those of police and firefighters, is just a little over $19,000 a year.
Three-quarters of New York's pensioners overall get less than $30,000 a year, and less than one-half of 1 percent get more than $100,000.
Panel member Janet Cowell, North Carolina's state treasurer, said the average pension in her state is a mere $22,000 a year. She said fewer than 300 retirees get $100,000-plus pensions – "and some of those are basketball coaches."
Rhode Island retiree Dolores Bresette, a voice from the trenches, as it were, told her unfortunately not uncommon story to the panel. She said "I worked for the State of Rhode Island for 37 years and contributed 9 percent of my salary to my pension fund. Now, after years of saving and preparing for my retirement, so much of what I and thousands of other public workers were promised is being taken away." That's because of last November's enactment of a "Retirement Security Act" which, among other things, suspended cost-of-living adjustments for Rhode Island retirees indefinitely."
There are real human implications of the current efforts to dismantle public workers' pension funds", Bresette declared, "and people in Washington and the country need to see that." She and other panelists warned that "in addition to the human implications there are serious social and economic consequences that will develop over the long term if the shift away from defined-benefit pensions continues. Instead of dismantling public employee retirement systems, policymakers should be working to improve retirement security for the private sector workforce.
Edited: for complete article, please go to www.dickmeister.com
(1)http://www.sfbg.com/bruce/2012/03/23/meister-its-not-true-what-they-say-about-pensions By Dick Meister, former labor editor of the SF Chronicle and KQED-TV Newsroom Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com, which includes more than 350 of his columns.
Portugal General Strike, Spain, Italy Next
Anti-Austerity Mass General Strike Takes Portugal, Spain and Italy are Next
Today in Portugal public services and transportation came to a halt, as unions enacted a 24-hour general strike for the second time in two months. The metros in Portugal's largest cities have closed as well as major ports. The strike was called in reaction to austerity measures agreed upon by the government in return for a European bailout. A picket at Sao Bento station in Porto. The bib reads "General Strike." (Jose Coelho/EPA) Demonstrations and rallies are planned for the afternoon in 38 cities and towns across the country. Today's events preclude similar strikes in both Italy and Spain among countries facing European austerity.
Spain's two main unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, have called for a general strike on Marc h 29 to protest the government's austerity pus. Italy's largest trade union called for a general strike over labor reforms on Wednesday, in protest of Prime Minister Mario Monti and Italy's austerity. Common dreams staff
* * *Portugal Hit by General Strike Against Austerity (Agence France-Presse): Lisbon, protestors linking actions to other demonstrations around the globe (Photo: Jose Manuel Ribeiro/Reuters) Garbage went uncollected, ports closed, trains stood still, public transportation was disrupted and other public services were affected by the country's second general strike in four months. The metros in Lisbon and Oporto, Portugal's second-largest city, were closed because of the strike, forcing tens of thousands of commuters to find an alternative way to get to work or school. The majority of ports, including the port of Lisbon and Viana do Castelo in the north, were closed, according to the country's biggest union -- the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP) -- which called the strike. About two dozen ships were forced to change their routes to go to other ports because of the action, it added. [...]The CGTP, which is close to the Communist Party, called the strike in February to protest against a reform of the labor code that makes it easier to hire and fire workers. It is also angry over government austerity measures such as the elimination of public employees' Christmas and vacation bonuses -- each roughly equivalent to a month's pay.
Italian Union Calls Strike Over Monti's Job Reforms (Reuters): Italy's largest trade union called for a general strike over labor reforms on Wednesday, escalating a confrontation with Prime Minister Mario Monti that will test his resolve to push ahead with plans to transform the economy. After weeks of negotiation, Monti announced late on Tuesday that the time for talking was over and he would press on with plans to overhaul employment protection laws dating back to the 1970s, despite stiff opposition from the left-wing CGIL union. The CGIL proposed an eight-hour general strike to protest the measures, which would allow companies to lay off individual employees for disciplinary or business reasons, saying the changes risked causing massive job losses." This will not be a flare-up which burns out in a day as the government expects and we have a duty to get results before we see years of mass dismissals from companies," the union's secretariat said in a statement. The strike would mark the biggest demonstration against technocrat premier Monti, a former European Commissioner who has already imposed painful cuts and tax hikes and an overhaul of the pension system since taking office in November.
Today in Portugal public services and transportation came to a halt, as unions enacted a 24-hour general strike for the second time in two months. The metros in Portugal's largest cities have closed as well as major ports. The strike was called in reaction to austerity measures agreed upon by the government in return for a European bailout. A picket at Sao Bento station in Porto. The bib reads "General Strike." (Jose Coelho/EPA) Demonstrations and rallies are planned for the afternoon in 38 cities and towns across the country. Today's events preclude similar strikes in both Italy and Spain among countries facing European austerity.
Spain's two main unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, have called for a general strike on Marc h 29 to protest the government's austerity pus. Italy's largest trade union called for a general strike over labor reforms on Wednesday, in protest of Prime Minister Mario Monti and Italy's austerity. Common dreams staff
* * *Portugal Hit by General Strike Against Austerity (Agence France-Presse): Lisbon, protestors linking actions to other demonstrations around the globe (Photo: Jose Manuel Ribeiro/Reuters) Garbage went uncollected, ports closed, trains stood still, public transportation was disrupted and other public services were affected by the country's second general strike in four months. The metros in Lisbon and Oporto, Portugal's second-largest city, were closed because of the strike, forcing tens of thousands of commuters to find an alternative way to get to work or school. The majority of ports, including the port of Lisbon and Viana do Castelo in the north, were closed, according to the country's biggest union -- the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP) -- which called the strike. About two dozen ships were forced to change their routes to go to other ports because of the action, it added. [...]The CGTP, which is close to the Communist Party, called the strike in February to protest against a reform of the labor code that makes it easier to hire and fire workers. It is also angry over government austerity measures such as the elimination of public employees' Christmas and vacation bonuses -- each roughly equivalent to a month's pay.
Italian Union Calls Strike Over Monti's Job Reforms (Reuters): Italy's largest trade union called for a general strike over labor reforms on Wednesday, escalating a confrontation with Prime Minister Mario Monti that will test his resolve to push ahead with plans to transform the economy. After weeks of negotiation, Monti announced late on Tuesday that the time for talking was over and he would press on with plans to overhaul employment protection laws dating back to the 1970s, despite stiff opposition from the left-wing CGIL union. The CGIL proposed an eight-hour general strike to protest the measures, which would allow companies to lay off individual employees for disciplinary or business reasons, saying the changes risked causing massive job losses." This will not be a flare-up which burns out in a day as the government expects and we have a duty to get results before we see years of mass dismissals from companies," the union's secretariat said in a statement. The strike would mark the biggest demonstration against technocrat premier Monti, a former European Commissioner who has already imposed painful cuts and tax hikes and an overhaul of the pension system since taking office in November.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Wall Street is Moral Bankrupt - Phil Angelides
Chair of Financial Inquiry Committee Assails Wall Street’s Continuing
'Breaches of Ethics'
On the very day that Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith announced his resignation in revulsion over how the firm is callously “ripping their clients off,"
Phil Angelides, chair of the nation’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, expressed his continuing disgust with how Wall Street has become “a casino floor as big as New York, New York,” after wiping away $9 trillion of household wealth “like a day trade gone bad.” Speaking at a Responsible Investment Forum of investors, pension fund managers and union and community leaders, convened in Los Angeles by Heartland Capital Strategies (HCS), Angelides assailed the financial system centered on Wall Street for “becoming a conduit for speculation rather than productive investment.”
Citing HCS as “a clearinghouse for what’s good in investment,” Angelides asserted that four years after the market collapse, “the financial crisis is still metastasizing.”“The ultimate tragedy of the past decade,” he said, “is that we created $13 trillion in mortgage securities—many of which were destructive—rather than deploying that capital in ways to make us a global leader in renewable energy or in rebuilding our infrastructure.”
The forum, the second of four sponsored by HCS in collaboration with the Blue Green Alliance, focused on the need to revitalize the real economy through value-added investments in the nation’s infrastructure and by developing new sources of clean energy. Recalling President Harry Truman’s condemnation of Wall Street financiers as “gluttons of privilege” in their pursuit of power, Angelides said that “widespread breaches of ethics” have continued to drive maldistribution of the nation’s wealth.“
Since May 2009,” he pointed out, “92 percent of the nation’s economic growth has gone to corporate profits and zero to wages” while also noting that we now have the lowest ratio of wages to GDP since the Great Depression. Calling the implosion of financial markets “in many respects a crisis by design,” resulting in large part from the push for deregulation, Angelides averred that the need exists to “remake the contours of our economy, not just restart it.” “There isn’t a better time to talk about how to mobilize capital and create wealth in our economy,” he concluded.
Angelides also moderated a panel of fund managers and pension consultants engaged in making value-added investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency that bring first-rate returns, as well as contributing to the economy and the community at large. Jim McDermott, managing director of the US Renewables Group and formerly the owner of a successful online postage business, explained that in addition to earning solid returns, unlike IT, “renewables touch people in many ways every day: engineering to design them, labor to build them and facilities to sustain them. So they breed a long-term relationship with the community.” He advocated an investment approach that draws on the global best-of-class intellectual properties in tech being developed in American universities, scaling them up for domestic production and exporting these products, as Germany is successfully doing to great advantage.
“When people say that clean tech does not pay, it’s just not true,” he added. “Only those that were too highly leveraged failed.” Ed Smeloff, a project developer for SunPower and former chair of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, asserted that “clean tech is not a niche market, it is going to be the transformative technology for the remainder of the century, since more greenhouse gases will go into the air in first 20 years of the 21st century than in the entire 20th century.” Public policy has always driven the utility industry, he said, adding that what’s needed now is access to the integrated network of the grid—the high voltage transmission system—as well as “credit worthy off-takers of the system.” “What has enabled the market to take off in the U.S.,” he concluded, “is tax policy for renewables,” which led him to hail the extension of the Investment Tax Credit until 2016.
When Angelides asked if there has been a recalibration of return expectations by Taft-Hartley pension funds, Sarah Bernstein, a principal with the Pension Consulting Alliance (PCA), replied that since the 2008 crisis, “Everybody is lowering their perception of necessary returns. Everybody is looking at risk.” A lively discussion ensued among the 33 participants in the forum about how best to package proposals to investors to ensure their value-added qualities are recognized and compelling in the context of the current trepidation about risk.
John Williams, CEO of Impact Investments LLC, suggested that the goal should be to provide a level of due diligence beyond Taft-Hartley, a protocol that builds the U.N. principles for Responsible Investment into proposals in order to give investors the ability to compare projects, which will encourage them to select those with the most sustainable returns, including the added value of advancing environmental, social and governance principles. Williams said his firm is developing metrics that will make such a protocol available for fund managers and pension trustees alike to use in assessing the value-added components of proposed investments.
'Breaches of Ethics'
On the very day that Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith announced his resignation in revulsion over how the firm is callously “ripping their clients off,"
Phil Angelides, chair of the nation’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, expressed his continuing disgust with how Wall Street has become “a casino floor as big as New York, New York,” after wiping away $9 trillion of household wealth “like a day trade gone bad.” Speaking at a Responsible Investment Forum of investors, pension fund managers and union and community leaders, convened in Los Angeles by Heartland Capital Strategies (HCS), Angelides assailed the financial system centered on Wall Street for “becoming a conduit for speculation rather than productive investment.”
Citing HCS as “a clearinghouse for what’s good in investment,” Angelides asserted that four years after the market collapse, “the financial crisis is still metastasizing.”“The ultimate tragedy of the past decade,” he said, “is that we created $13 trillion in mortgage securities—many of which were destructive—rather than deploying that capital in ways to make us a global leader in renewable energy or in rebuilding our infrastructure.”
The forum, the second of four sponsored by HCS in collaboration with the Blue Green Alliance, focused on the need to revitalize the real economy through value-added investments in the nation’s infrastructure and by developing new sources of clean energy. Recalling President Harry Truman’s condemnation of Wall Street financiers as “gluttons of privilege” in their pursuit of power, Angelides said that “widespread breaches of ethics” have continued to drive maldistribution of the nation’s wealth.“
Since May 2009,” he pointed out, “92 percent of the nation’s economic growth has gone to corporate profits and zero to wages” while also noting that we now have the lowest ratio of wages to GDP since the Great Depression. Calling the implosion of financial markets “in many respects a crisis by design,” resulting in large part from the push for deregulation, Angelides averred that the need exists to “remake the contours of our economy, not just restart it.” “There isn’t a better time to talk about how to mobilize capital and create wealth in our economy,” he concluded.
Angelides also moderated a panel of fund managers and pension consultants engaged in making value-added investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency that bring first-rate returns, as well as contributing to the economy and the community at large. Jim McDermott, managing director of the US Renewables Group and formerly the owner of a successful online postage business, explained that in addition to earning solid returns, unlike IT, “renewables touch people in many ways every day: engineering to design them, labor to build them and facilities to sustain them. So they breed a long-term relationship with the community.” He advocated an investment approach that draws on the global best-of-class intellectual properties in tech being developed in American universities, scaling them up for domestic production and exporting these products, as Germany is successfully doing to great advantage.
“When people say that clean tech does not pay, it’s just not true,” he added. “Only those that were too highly leveraged failed.” Ed Smeloff, a project developer for SunPower and former chair of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, asserted that “clean tech is not a niche market, it is going to be the transformative technology for the remainder of the century, since more greenhouse gases will go into the air in first 20 years of the 21st century than in the entire 20th century.” Public policy has always driven the utility industry, he said, adding that what’s needed now is access to the integrated network of the grid—the high voltage transmission system—as well as “credit worthy off-takers of the system.” “What has enabled the market to take off in the U.S.,” he concluded, “is tax policy for renewables,” which led him to hail the extension of the Investment Tax Credit until 2016.
When Angelides asked if there has been a recalibration of return expectations by Taft-Hartley pension funds, Sarah Bernstein, a principal with the Pension Consulting Alliance (PCA), replied that since the 2008 crisis, “Everybody is lowering their perception of necessary returns. Everybody is looking at risk.” A lively discussion ensued among the 33 participants in the forum about how best to package proposals to investors to ensure their value-added qualities are recognized and compelling in the context of the current trepidation about risk.
John Williams, CEO of Impact Investments LLC, suggested that the goal should be to provide a level of due diligence beyond Taft-Hartley, a protocol that builds the U.N. principles for Responsible Investment into proposals in order to give investors the ability to compare projects, which will encourage them to select those with the most sustainable returns, including the added value of advancing environmental, social and governance principles. Williams said his firm is developing metrics that will make such a protocol available for fund managers and pension trustees alike to use in assessing the value-added components of proposed investments.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Occupy LA Bank Protesters Arrested
Bank Protesters Arrested
After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check
VIDEO: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check -
Lynette Romero reports
VIDEO: Occupy LA Protest Continues - Chip Yost reports
VIDEO:
"Occupy LA" Protest Calls For End To Corporate Greed - Jennifer Gould
reports
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (KTLA) -- Ten protesters were
arrested at a downtown Los Angeles Bank of America
branch on Thursday afternoon. A group marched inside the
bank and tried to cash a $673 billion check. The protest was organized by
the Refund California campaign. "Occupy L.A." protesters,
inspired by the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in New York,
also joined in, authorities said.The protesters tried to cash an
over-sized check made out to the "People of California," LAPD
Lt. Paul Vernon said.
Ten protesters -- six men and four women -- were arrested after
refusing to leave the bank, police said. Earlier in the day Thursday,
Occupy L.A. protesters took over the intersection of 7th and
Figueroa streets, prompting police in riot gear to respond to the scene.
Protesters also covered Bank of America ATM's with caution tape. Thursday's
demonstrations were the latest in a series of protests in the
Southland. On Tuesday afternoon, several dozen protesters with signs and
a bullhorn picketed outside the Westwood home of a One West Bank
executive. About 50 demonstrators showed up outside the home and stayed
about 30 minutes as Los Angeles Police Department officers looked
on. Some "Occupy L.A." protesters have been camping outside City Hall in
downtown L.A. The loosely organized group is protesting what it perceives
as corporate greed. It hopes to encourage social change and political
involvement. Organizers say their target is pretty straight forward:
corporations that they believe have taken control of the ability of Americans to
get decent jobs and to keep other freedoms. Organizers also want to make
it clear that this occupation is a "non-violent" one.
After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check
VIDEO: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check -
Lynette Romero reports
VIDEO: Occupy LA Protest Continues - Chip Yost reports
VIDEO:
"Occupy LA" Protest Calls For End To Corporate Greed - Jennifer Gould
reports
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (KTLA) -- Ten protesters were
arrested at a downtown Los Angeles Bank of America
branch on Thursday afternoon. A group marched inside the
bank and tried to cash a $673 billion check. The protest was organized by
the Refund California campaign. "Occupy L.A." protesters,
inspired by the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in New York,
also joined in, authorities said.The protesters tried to cash an
over-sized check made out to the "People of California," LAPD
Lt. Paul Vernon said.
Ten protesters -- six men and four women -- were arrested after
refusing to leave the bank, police said. Earlier in the day Thursday,
Occupy L.A. protesters took over the intersection of 7th and
Figueroa streets, prompting police in riot gear to respond to the scene.
Protesters also covered Bank of America ATM's with caution tape. Thursday's
demonstrations were the latest in a series of protests in the
Southland. On Tuesday afternoon, several dozen protesters with signs and
a bullhorn picketed outside the Westwood home of a One West Bank
executive. About 50 demonstrators showed up outside the home and stayed
about 30 minutes as Los Angeles Police Department officers looked
on. Some "Occupy L.A." protesters have been camping outside City Hall in
downtown L.A. The loosely organized group is protesting what it perceives
as corporate greed. It hopes to encourage social change and political
involvement. Organizers say their target is pretty straight forward:
corporations that they believe have taken control of the ability of Americans to
get decent jobs and to keep other freedoms. Organizers also want to make
it clear that this occupation is a "non-violent" one.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
General Strike in Spain
Spain to go on General Strike March 10
The CNT, Spain’s anarchist labor union, issued a statement yesterday announcing that they will be convoking a nation-wide general strike for March 29 against the labor reform passed on Thursday by the Parliament.
This coincides with strikes that have already been called for Galicia and the Basque Country. In these regions the call was made jointly between “minority” unions such as the CNT and CGT as well as regionally-important unions linked to nationalist movements. On the national scale, however, the CNT has called the strike on its own. According to Spain’s labor law, strikes are only official if called, or convoked, by a union or another official body. In the message announcing the strike call, the CNT said that they hope to give coverage to any workers’ organizations that want to take action.
Spain’s two main unions, the UGT and the CCOO, have also called for a strike on that day, but speak only of “amending” the labor reform. This is a continuation of their policy of social peace – in February they signed a major agreement with the employers’ confederation in which they gave major concessions. Recognizing the growing disillusion that many workers are feeling towards these unions, the CNT is promoting a different form of unionism, one which is not based on professional bureaucrats and policies of social peace, but rather on the direct action and solidarity of workers.
This appears to be the first nation-wide general strike since the end of Francisco Franco’s dictatorship to be called for by a union other than the CCOO or UGT, though it remains to be which unions, if any, will follow the CNT in calling for a general strike. The CNT’s statement was clear that, although the strike is only called for March 29, this should be seen only as one step in a growing mobilization which seeks not only to remove this labor reform in its entirety, but also to go on the offensive with the goal of social transformation.
http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/strike-everywhere/#more-2131
The CNT, Spain’s anarchist labor union, issued a statement yesterday announcing that they will be convoking a nation-wide general strike for March 29 against the labor reform passed on Thursday by the Parliament.
This coincides with strikes that have already been called for Galicia and the Basque Country. In these regions the call was made jointly between “minority” unions such as the CNT and CGT as well as regionally-important unions linked to nationalist movements. On the national scale, however, the CNT has called the strike on its own. According to Spain’s labor law, strikes are only official if called, or convoked, by a union or another official body. In the message announcing the strike call, the CNT said that they hope to give coverage to any workers’ organizations that want to take action.
Spain’s two main unions, the UGT and the CCOO, have also called for a strike on that day, but speak only of “amending” the labor reform. This is a continuation of their policy of social peace – in February they signed a major agreement with the employers’ confederation in which they gave major concessions. Recognizing the growing disillusion that many workers are feeling towards these unions, the CNT is promoting a different form of unionism, one which is not based on professional bureaucrats and policies of social peace, but rather on the direct action and solidarity of workers.
This appears to be the first nation-wide general strike since the end of Francisco Franco’s dictatorship to be called for by a union other than the CCOO or UGT, though it remains to be which unions, if any, will follow the CNT in calling for a general strike. The CNT’s statement was clear that, although the strike is only called for March 29, this should be seen only as one step in a growing mobilization which seeks not only to remove this labor reform in its entirety, but also to go on the offensive with the goal of social transformation.
http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/strike-everywhere/#more-2131
British UNIONS Defy Gov't Pension Cuts
Unions say no to Tory pension cuts
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27811
The NUT, PCS, UCU and EIS unions could be part of a 750,000-strong strike on 28 March. The Tories (Conservatives) have unilaterally declared that the majority of their talks with unions are over. These had been over government plans to “reform” public sector pensions in health, education and the civil service. Talks over local government pensions are continuing. The Tories want to impose serious attacks on millions of workers in these sectors. This is despite the fact that a number of union leaderships have rejected the plans and many are still consulting members. The government wants to force public sector workers to work longer, pay more into their pensions each month and get less when they retire. It plans to impose stark rises on workers’ pension contributions from next month.
Carl, a teacher and NUT member in Bolton, told Socialist Worker, “What’s happening is a disgrace and I’m prepared to strike indefinitely. “I know many people who are considering withdrawing from the pension scheme because of the changes. “Private sector workers often don’t pay into pension schemes because they don’t trust them. Unfortunately we no longer trust ours either. ”DisagreeA treasury minister last week said that talks with the unions over changes to health, education and civil service pensions were “constructive”.
Unions disagree.NUT general secretary Christine Blower said, “The NUT has not signed up to these proposals and neither has the majority of the other teacher unions.“We cannot accept our members being asked to pay so much more and work so much longer for their pensions and receive so much less in retirement.
”PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said, “(Gov't) Ministers’ obstinacy means we have this ludicrous charade of what is now our fourth ‘final’ offer. We will continue to talk to other unions about planning further widespread coordinated industrial action. "Unison said it would ballot its 450,000 members in the NHS on the offer. The GMB promised to consult members in the NHS and civil service. And Unite denounced the government for “having avoided any meaningful negotiations over the last year”. It is “recommending that its members in the NHS, Ministry of Defence and government departments and in teaching reject the proposals”. The union is consulting its NHS members.Workers in public sector unions overwhelmingly voted for discontinuous strikes against the pension attacks last year.
This means that unions already have a mandate to call further strikes, regardless of fresh consultations. Anna, a teacher in Somerset, said, “People don’t see a consultation in the same way as an official ballot and so may not feel the need to vote in the same way. If the turnout is low, unions should still call the strike.“NUT members at my school are for taking action on 28 March. And they don’t just want it to be one day—they support further action after that too.”
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27811
The NUT, PCS, UCU and EIS unions could be part of a 750,000-strong strike on 28 March. The Tories (Conservatives) have unilaterally declared that the majority of their talks with unions are over. These had been over government plans to “reform” public sector pensions in health, education and the civil service. Talks over local government pensions are continuing. The Tories want to impose serious attacks on millions of workers in these sectors. This is despite the fact that a number of union leaderships have rejected the plans and many are still consulting members. The government wants to force public sector workers to work longer, pay more into their pensions each month and get less when they retire. It plans to impose stark rises on workers’ pension contributions from next month.
Carl, a teacher and NUT member in Bolton, told Socialist Worker, “What’s happening is a disgrace and I’m prepared to strike indefinitely. “I know many people who are considering withdrawing from the pension scheme because of the changes. “Private sector workers often don’t pay into pension schemes because they don’t trust them. Unfortunately we no longer trust ours either. ”DisagreeA treasury minister last week said that talks with the unions over changes to health, education and civil service pensions were “constructive”.
Unions disagree.NUT general secretary Christine Blower said, “The NUT has not signed up to these proposals and neither has the majority of the other teacher unions.“We cannot accept our members being asked to pay so much more and work so much longer for their pensions and receive so much less in retirement.
”PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said, “(Gov't) Ministers’ obstinacy means we have this ludicrous charade of what is now our fourth ‘final’ offer. We will continue to talk to other unions about planning further widespread coordinated industrial action. "Unison said it would ballot its 450,000 members in the NHS on the offer. The GMB promised to consult members in the NHS and civil service. And Unite denounced the government for “having avoided any meaningful negotiations over the last year”. It is “recommending that its members in the NHS, Ministry of Defence and government departments and in teaching reject the proposals”. The union is consulting its NHS members.Workers in public sector unions overwhelmingly voted for discontinuous strikes against the pension attacks last year.
This means that unions already have a mandate to call further strikes, regardless of fresh consultations. Anna, a teacher in Somerset, said, “People don’t see a consultation in the same way as an official ballot and so may not feel the need to vote in the same way. If the turnout is low, unions should still call the strike.“NUT members at my school are for taking action on 28 March. And they don’t just want it to be one day—they support further action after that too.”
Friday, March 16, 2012
Unions Not Committing to Pres. Obama
Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement
by Mike Elk
Last May, AFL-CIO President Trumka declared labor’s political independence by pledging to use the power of Super PACS to reach out to nonunion voters and build labor's own political organization and message outside of the Democratic Party.
Yesterday, the leaders of the labor federation unanimously endorsed President Obama for re-election, saying he “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights, pay and health and safety on the job.” “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.”The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other. This tension continues despite the endorsement, as witnessed by the fact that the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO is continuing its boycott of the Democratic National Convention. The boycott was called because the DNC is being held this September in largely nonunion facilities in one of the most poorly unionized states in the country: North Carolina.
A few labor leaders are complaining that the way the AFL-CIO handled the endorsement does not represent a new trend in “political independence” for the labor movement, but rather a return to business as usual. The endorsement came relatively early—before the Republican primary season has even ended and nearly six months before the DNC in Charlotte. (It endorsed Obama for election in June 2008, but endorsed John Kerry in February 2004.)
In my opinion, the endorsement hurts organized labor's ability to have leverage over Obama’s actions during the remainder of his first term. A cautionary tale, in my view, is how a few days after the Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed President Obama for re-election, the president signed a bill funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that, according to CWA President Larry Cohen, makes the organizing rights of airline and rail workers “worse than it’s ever been.”
“Anybody who negotiates a contract knows that you start off with an ultimate idea of what you want and you don't stop negotiating till the very end. I don’t get why they are doing this so early,” says South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt, who is not in favor of endorsing Obama. “Of all things the labor movement should know, it’s how to negotiate. I don’t think they know how to negotiate anymore.” (Editor's note: See correction and appended statement from DeWitt below.)
In the offical endorsement statement, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said that Obama “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights," but the statement glosses over the fact that Obama has often ignored, blocked or stymied key workers’ rights and health and safety regulations. In the last month alone, Obama has pushed increasing federal workers' pension contributions (in his proposed 2013 budget). Last month also marked the one-year anniversary of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delaying publishing OSHA rules that would prevent workers' exposure to cancer causing silicia dust. Typically, the OMB is supposed to review rules for only 90 days, but under industry pressure the White House has reportedly prevented the rules from being published. Acoording to a study by Public Citizen, 60 workers' lives could have been saved if the White House had immediately moved to implement stronger silicia regulations.
And what has President Obama done to help American workers organize themselves into unions, or protect the collective bargaining rights they currently enjoy? From where I stand, the short answer is not much. While the president's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have helped pass several pro-labor rules, those rules are by no means permanent. (They could be changed by a future NLRB board that is dominated by anti-union appointees.) The FAA budget bill referred to above, though, marks the only federal legislation that Obama has signed that (negatively) affects the ability of organized labor to collectively bargain.
Remember the Employee Free Choice Act, the great legislative hope of the labor movement as President Obama came into office? He allowed the bill, which would have made it easier for all workers to unionize by allowing them to bypass secret ballot election if they so choosed, to die entirely. As President, Obama publicly distanced himself from labor law reform—he didn't give a single major speech on the subject of workers’ rights, as opposed to immigration and climate change. Likewise, as I documented, Obama’s most recent State of the Union address did not mention the unprecedented attacks on workers’ rights at the state level, in places like Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. Indeed, United Electrical Workers union Political Director Chris Townsend argues that the most high-profile comments the Obama administration has made regarding labor law have been speeches attacking teachers unions. Townsend points to a speech by Obama at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March of 2009 calling on teacher unions to allow more flexibility in their contracts; he also points to the president's remarks endorsing the mass firing of unionized teachers in Central Falls, R.I., in March 2010. Townsend, whose union is not endorsing Obama for re-election, worries that by glossing over Obama’s deficiencies, the federation's unions hurt their credibility with their own members. "Why should union leaders—from shop stewards right up the national union president —why should we sacrifice our hard-earned credibility with our members for the sake of some politician? Do they sacrifice any of their precious credibility for us, in our battles with the bosses? Rarely, if at all, and only at election time,” Townsend says. “The membership knows this, and there's no point in trying to conceal it or gloss over it with good-news-only press releases. It's bad enough we are locked in this two party trap. We don't have to make it all worse by not leveling with the members about what we are really facing."
Some argue that the attacks supported by GOP presidential candidates (e.g., a national right-to-work law) are so extreme that organized labor should endorse any Democrat to ward off a Republican in office. Dewitt, from South Carolina, where Governor Nikki Halley has said publicly that “unions are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina,” disagrees with this approach. “I run one of the only state federations that did not endorse our Democratic nominee for Governor last time around," says Dewitt. "He was a nice guy, but he did not know how to say the word—Union.” Dewitt says that unions also hurt their credibility with their members when they go all out for Democrats who are lukewarm at best in their support for organized labor. “I spend half of my time trying to talk to membership upset with their international. We have to act like labor leaders and not corporate labor leaders," Dewitt says. "We don't have strong labor leaders. They are always making a deal on something. I don’t know how we keep [union members] in places like South Carolina if we don’t truly represent them.” The AFL-CIO has occasionally taken a more confrontational approach with Democrats in recent years. In 2010, organized labor poured millions of dollars into a primary challenge to Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln—she ended up winning the primary, but losing the general election to a Republican. In a recent interview with In These Times, however, Trumka said “I don’t have any plans right now” to primary Democrats in Congress who have been unfriendly toward labor."
"The AFL-CIO just kicks that can down the road again even as most unions face relentless assaults on wages, pensions and healthcare," says railroad worker Jonathan Flanders of Troy, N.Y., a member of the IAM. "The assaults will not end with Obama's re-election, and we'll find his administration doing little to stop them, outside of occasional lip service."To unionists like Flanders, fed up with what organized labor is getting from Democrats these days, "the project of getting political representation of the working class in its own party still lies ahead.
"The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the South Carolina AFL-CIO did not endorse President Obama for re-election. In fact, state-level AFL-CIO affiliates do not endorse presidential candidates. Dewitt was speaking on her own behalf. We regret the error.
Update (March 15): After this story was published yesterday, South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt told me she received a call from a representative of the AFL-CIO displeased with her disagreement about the endorsement. She e-mailed me the following statement to clarify her position on the matter: "I understand that [the AFL-CIO's presidential endorsement is made] by the national leaders through a deliberative process, just as the state federations conduct endorsement meetings for the purpose of receiving and acting on recommendations of endorsement for State and U.S. representatives from their affiliated union locals and bodies within their state."
"I spoke from a personal perspective, but I need to be clear that I reflect the concerns of the South Carolina AFL-CIO Officers and Executive Board, who listen to their membership and entrust me to speak on their behalf. We know the struggles that all of our states are facing because we have been confronted with these struggles for centuries. Throughout my 16-year tenure I have received support and resources from the AFL-CIO staff and I have strived to comply with all of the AFL-CIO programs in South Carolina. The person who contacted me
from the AFL-CIO implied they don't expect this from a leader that receives support, including financial support, from the national AFL-CIO. My remarks in the article reflect my personal encounters with rank-and-file union members. Many of them fear speaking out on key decisions that are made by their international leaders for fear of retribution. They are proud union members who want a voice in their leaders that reflects their pride in being a union member first.
The demise of Unions may simply be that union leaders have placed their priorities on electing politicians that can still count- and our numbers don’t scare them."
by Mike Elk
Last May, AFL-CIO President Trumka declared labor’s political independence by pledging to use the power of Super PACS to reach out to nonunion voters and build labor's own political organization and message outside of the Democratic Party.
Yesterday, the leaders of the labor federation unanimously endorsed President Obama for re-election, saying he “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights, pay and health and safety on the job.” “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.”The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other. This tension continues despite the endorsement, as witnessed by the fact that the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO is continuing its boycott of the Democratic National Convention. The boycott was called because the DNC is being held this September in largely nonunion facilities in one of the most poorly unionized states in the country: North Carolina.
A few labor leaders are complaining that the way the AFL-CIO handled the endorsement does not represent a new trend in “political independence” for the labor movement, but rather a return to business as usual. The endorsement came relatively early—before the Republican primary season has even ended and nearly six months before the DNC in Charlotte. (It endorsed Obama for election in June 2008, but endorsed John Kerry in February 2004.)
In my opinion, the endorsement hurts organized labor's ability to have leverage over Obama’s actions during the remainder of his first term. A cautionary tale, in my view, is how a few days after the Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed President Obama for re-election, the president signed a bill funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that, according to CWA President Larry Cohen, makes the organizing rights of airline and rail workers “worse than it’s ever been.”
“Anybody who negotiates a contract knows that you start off with an ultimate idea of what you want and you don't stop negotiating till the very end. I don’t get why they are doing this so early,” says South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt, who is not in favor of endorsing Obama. “Of all things the labor movement should know, it’s how to negotiate. I don’t think they know how to negotiate anymore.” (Editor's note: See correction and appended statement from DeWitt below.)
In the offical endorsement statement, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said that Obama “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights," but the statement glosses over the fact that Obama has often ignored, blocked or stymied key workers’ rights and health and safety regulations. In the last month alone, Obama has pushed increasing federal workers' pension contributions (in his proposed 2013 budget). Last month also marked the one-year anniversary of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delaying publishing OSHA rules that would prevent workers' exposure to cancer causing silicia dust. Typically, the OMB is supposed to review rules for only 90 days, but under industry pressure the White House has reportedly prevented the rules from being published. Acoording to a study by Public Citizen, 60 workers' lives could have been saved if the White House had immediately moved to implement stronger silicia regulations.
And what has President Obama done to help American workers organize themselves into unions, or protect the collective bargaining rights they currently enjoy? From where I stand, the short answer is not much. While the president's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have helped pass several pro-labor rules, those rules are by no means permanent. (They could be changed by a future NLRB board that is dominated by anti-union appointees.) The FAA budget bill referred to above, though, marks the only federal legislation that Obama has signed that (negatively) affects the ability of organized labor to collectively bargain.
Remember the Employee Free Choice Act, the great legislative hope of the labor movement as President Obama came into office? He allowed the bill, which would have made it easier for all workers to unionize by allowing them to bypass secret ballot election if they so choosed, to die entirely. As President, Obama publicly distanced himself from labor law reform—he didn't give a single major speech on the subject of workers’ rights, as opposed to immigration and climate change. Likewise, as I documented, Obama’s most recent State of the Union address did not mention the unprecedented attacks on workers’ rights at the state level, in places like Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. Indeed, United Electrical Workers union Political Director Chris Townsend argues that the most high-profile comments the Obama administration has made regarding labor law have been speeches attacking teachers unions. Townsend points to a speech by Obama at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March of 2009 calling on teacher unions to allow more flexibility in their contracts; he also points to the president's remarks endorsing the mass firing of unionized teachers in Central Falls, R.I., in March 2010. Townsend, whose union is not endorsing Obama for re-election, worries that by glossing over Obama’s deficiencies, the federation's unions hurt their credibility with their own members. "Why should union leaders—from shop stewards right up the national union president —why should we sacrifice our hard-earned credibility with our members for the sake of some politician? Do they sacrifice any of their precious credibility for us, in our battles with the bosses? Rarely, if at all, and only at election time,” Townsend says. “The membership knows this, and there's no point in trying to conceal it or gloss over it with good-news-only press releases. It's bad enough we are locked in this two party trap. We don't have to make it all worse by not leveling with the members about what we are really facing."
Some argue that the attacks supported by GOP presidential candidates (e.g., a national right-to-work law) are so extreme that organized labor should endorse any Democrat to ward off a Republican in office. Dewitt, from South Carolina, where Governor Nikki Halley has said publicly that “unions are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina,” disagrees with this approach. “I run one of the only state federations that did not endorse our Democratic nominee for Governor last time around," says Dewitt. "He was a nice guy, but he did not know how to say the word—Union.” Dewitt says that unions also hurt their credibility with their members when they go all out for Democrats who are lukewarm at best in their support for organized labor. “I spend half of my time trying to talk to membership upset with their international. We have to act like labor leaders and not corporate labor leaders," Dewitt says. "We don't have strong labor leaders. They are always making a deal on something. I don’t know how we keep [union members] in places like South Carolina if we don’t truly represent them.” The AFL-CIO has occasionally taken a more confrontational approach with Democrats in recent years. In 2010, organized labor poured millions of dollars into a primary challenge to Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln—she ended up winning the primary, but losing the general election to a Republican. In a recent interview with In These Times, however, Trumka said “I don’t have any plans right now” to primary Democrats in Congress who have been unfriendly toward labor."
"The AFL-CIO just kicks that can down the road again even as most unions face relentless assaults on wages, pensions and healthcare," says railroad worker Jonathan Flanders of Troy, N.Y., a member of the IAM. "The assaults will not end with Obama's re-election, and we'll find his administration doing little to stop them, outside of occasional lip service."To unionists like Flanders, fed up with what organized labor is getting from Democrats these days, "the project of getting political representation of the working class in its own party still lies ahead.
"The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the South Carolina AFL-CIO did not endorse President Obama for re-election. In fact, state-level AFL-CIO affiliates do not endorse presidential candidates. Dewitt was speaking on her own behalf. We regret the error.
Update (March 15): After this story was published yesterday, South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt told me she received a call from a representative of the AFL-CIO displeased with her disagreement about the endorsement. She e-mailed me the following statement to clarify her position on the matter: "I understand that [the AFL-CIO's presidential endorsement is made] by the national leaders through a deliberative process, just as the state federations conduct endorsement meetings for the purpose of receiving and acting on recommendations of endorsement for State and U.S. representatives from their affiliated union locals and bodies within their state."
"I spoke from a personal perspective, but I need to be clear that I reflect the concerns of the South Carolina AFL-CIO Officers and Executive Board, who listen to their membership and entrust me to speak on their behalf. We know the struggles that all of our states are facing because we have been confronted with these struggles for centuries. Throughout my 16-year tenure I have received support and resources from the AFL-CIO staff and I have strived to comply with all of the AFL-CIO programs in South Carolina. The person who contacted me
from the AFL-CIO implied they don't expect this from a leader that receives support, including financial support, from the national AFL-CIO. My remarks in the article reflect my personal encounters with rank-and-file union members. Many of them fear speaking out on key decisions that are made by their international leaders for fear of retribution. They are proud union members who want a voice in their leaders that reflects their pride in being a union member first.
The demise of Unions may simply be that union leaders have placed their priorities on electing politicians that can still count- and our numbers don’t scare them."
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Mail Workers Start to Fight
Postal Workers Mount Fight to Stop Processing Center Closures
Postal Workers (APWU) President Cliff Guffey says the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS's) announcement that it will close nearly half of the nation’s mail processing facilities “has sent a clear message” to workers and customers: If Congress does not take action before the moratorium expires, management intends to dismantle the mail processing network.
The closure of 223 mail processing plants threatens some 35,000 jobs, according to news reports. Guffey says if amendments to a current USPS bill (S. 1789) are adopted: It would prevent the closures of hundreds of mail processing plants and thousands of post offices, halt the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs and stop drastic reductions in service to the American people.
APWU members can click here to send a message to their lawmakers urging them to support a series of amendments recently offered by 27 Senators. Others can call 202-224-3121 and ask to speak to their senators and urge them to support the amendments. Without those amendments, the bill would pave the way for the USPS to carry out the closures of the processing faculties and also shut thousands of post offices, causing massive delays in mail delivery.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the 27 lawmakers offering the amendments, says the USPS plan to close the facilities “is deeply flawed and Congress must change it.”Click here, here and here to find out more.
Tagged under:APWU, Bernie Sanders, jobs, labor, postal workers,
Postal Workers (APWU) President Cliff Guffey says the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS's) announcement that it will close nearly half of the nation’s mail processing facilities “has sent a clear message” to workers and customers: If Congress does not take action before the moratorium expires, management intends to dismantle the mail processing network.
The closure of 223 mail processing plants threatens some 35,000 jobs, according to news reports. Guffey says if amendments to a current USPS bill (S. 1789) are adopted: It would prevent the closures of hundreds of mail processing plants and thousands of post offices, halt the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs and stop drastic reductions in service to the American people.
APWU members can click here to send a message to their lawmakers urging them to support a series of amendments recently offered by 27 Senators. Others can call 202-224-3121 and ask to speak to their senators and urge them to support the amendments. Without those amendments, the bill would pave the way for the USPS to carry out the closures of the processing faculties and also shut thousands of post offices, causing massive delays in mail delivery.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the 27 lawmakers offering the amendments, says the USPS plan to close the facilities “is deeply flawed and Congress must change it.”Click here, here and here to find out more.
Tagged under:APWU, Bernie Sanders, jobs, labor, postal workers,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)