Monday, June 25, 2012
AFSCME Plans to Fight
New Union Leader Vows Tougher Fight for Rights
LOS ANGELES — For Lee Saunders, the newly elected president of the AFSCME American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
defeat does not mean retreat.
Just the opposite: less than a month after the union lost its fight to recall Wisconsin’s anti-labor governor, Mr. Saunders is already planning his next campaign.
The union is seeking a referendum to Repeal a Michigan law that lets the governor appoint emergency managers to run deficit-plagued cities and void their contracts with public sector unions.
“We hope to do in Michigan what we did in Ohio,” Mr. Saunders said in an interview on Friday, referring to his Union’s success in backing a referendum last fall that overturned an Ohio law that curbed collective bargaining for public employees.
In speech after speech at his union’s convention this week, Mr. Saunders repeated, even shouted, the phrase, “We won’t back down.”
If anything, Mr. Saunders, who was the Union’s secretary-treasurer until winning the Presidency on Thursday, is vowing to increase efforts to battle policies his Union detests, including efforts to privatize government services and curb public employees’ ability to bargain collectively.
Stung by the many attacks on public employees, Mr. Saunders is eager to address some of the major points of contention between government officials and his union.
In the speech he gave Friday after he was sworn in as AFSCME's first new president in 31 years, he said he was forming a task force to study long-term solutions to the pension crisis that has prompted many states and cities, convinced that their plans are woefully underfunded, to push for cuts in pension benefits.
“We’ve got to really figure out how to deal with the attack on pensions,” Mr. Saunders said. “Our members are being hurt all across the country. We don’t have all the answers, but we want to help come up with solutions.”
In a fiercely fought contest, Mr. Saunders, who is the Union’s first African-American President, defeated Danny Donohue, the president of the union’s largest local, the Civil Service Employees Association in New York.
Late Thursday, the Union announced that Mr. Saunders had received 683,628 votes (54 percent) to Mr. Donohue’s 582,358 (46 percent).
Mr. Saunders pledged to try to reunite his union after the divisive election campaign and to increase organizing efforts. By some estimates, membership has fallen by nearly 100,000, to 1.3 million, over the last year, largely because of government layoffs.
Pointing to the many furloughs and pay freezes his union’s members have agreed to, Mr. Saunders insisted it was wrong for critics to say that public sector workers have refused to share in the pain others have suffered during the downturn.
“When we enter into bargaining, our people understand that they don’t want to tear apart the community. They’re part of the community,” he said. “But we don’t want things shoved down our throats. We don’t want the collective bargaining process ignored.”
Mr. Saunders repeatedly praised his predecessor, Gerald McEntee, who transformed
AFSCME into one of the nation’s most politically influential Unions. He did not indicate any plans to diverge from Mr. McEntee’s political program, which includes
spending $100 million on this year’s campaigns. But he emphasized that he would run a more open and transparent Union that engaged board members and other leaders more.
Mr. McEntee arguably became the leading political strategist for the labor movement from his position as Chairman of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political committee — a perch from which he played a major role in selecting Democratic presidential and Congressional candidates.
“I think Gerry McEntee has been a tremendous leader and he’s built a strong foundation,” Mr. Saunders said. “I’m not for tearing the foundation apart.”
Mr. McEntee said in an interview that he hoped Mr. Saunders would also lead the A.F.L.-C.I.O. committee because of AFSCME’s major role in the federation — it is the biggest Union in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. But other union presidents might also vie to head the political committee.
Mr. Saunders said it was vital to re-elect President Obama to help the nation’s labor unions and workers. “We’re going to work like hell for his campaign,” he said.
But he added that his Union planned to make life difficult for not just Republicans but also Democrats who seek to roll back pensions or bargaining rights.
“We must hold politicians of all political stripes accountable,” Mr. Saunders told the delegates on Friday. “We don’t work for any political party. We work for justice and fairness in the workplace. If someone turns on us, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, we will take you on and take you out.”
Two prominent Democrats have already attracted his union’s ire — New York’s governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, and the Mayor of San Jose, Calif., Chuck Reed — because they both led moves to reduce pensions. He also said AFSCME would back several Republican state legislators in Florida because they had helped block Gov. Rick Scott’s plan to privatize prisons.
“We have a relationship with several moderate Republicans there,” he said. “They supported us, and we will support them.”
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/business/saunders-new-afscme-leader-vows-tougher-fight-for-rights.html
Supremes Cut Labor Rights
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Unions
Especially in SEIU fight over Extra Dues
The Supreme Court ruled that unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
June 21, 2012, 11:06 a.m.WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Thursday to public employee Unions in a case from California, ruling that Unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
The dispute turned on a relatively small amount of money, but one that involved an important principle of the 1st Amendment. The case also carried echoes of the recent fights in Wisconsin and other states over limiting the power of public employee unions.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices said the Service Employees International Union violated the 1stAmendment when it collected an extra $6.45 per month from state employees in fall 2005.
The Union’s leaders had vowed to create a special $12-million fund to oppose two ballot measures sponsored by then-Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger that was seen as targeting public unions. They decided on a mid-year dues increase to pay for the campaign and said they would refund money later to those non-union employees who objected.
But a group of dissenting union members sued, alleging the forced special assessment violated their rights.
For decades, the Supreme Court has upheld an uneasy compromise between two rights. On the one hand, federal labor law protects the right of workers to form unions and the right of unions in some states to collect dues money from all employees to pay for collective bargaining.
On the other hand, the 1st Amendment bars the government from forcing persons, including public employees, to pay for political causes and candidates who they oppose. For that reason, public employee Unions must give dissenting members the right to opt out of paying the share of dues that goes to politics.
In the California case, the SEIU said it gave employees an annual notice of the dues and what share would go to supporting the Union and what share would go to politics. Its leaders maintained they were not required to send a mid-year notice at the time of the special assessment in 2005.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the union in a 2-1 decision, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Knox vs. SEIU.
In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.
"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1st Amendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector Union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the Unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, but did not join Alito’s opinion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented. They said dissenting members deserved the right to “opt out” of such a special assessment, but they disagreed with requiring the Union to get their advance approval to “opt in” to such a fund.
Breyer said he worried the court’s opinion could be read to mean that public unions must seek affirmative approval from all members before spending dues money on politics.
“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Breyer said.
“The question of how a nonmember indicates a desire not to pay constitutes an important part of this debate.… There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now
by David Savage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story
Especially in SEIU fight over Extra Dues
The Supreme Court ruled that unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
June 21, 2012, 11:06 a.m.WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Thursday to public employee Unions in a case from California, ruling that Unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
The dispute turned on a relatively small amount of money, but one that involved an important principle of the 1st Amendment. The case also carried echoes of the recent fights in Wisconsin and other states over limiting the power of public employee unions.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices said the Service Employees International Union violated the 1stAmendment when it collected an extra $6.45 per month from state employees in fall 2005.
The Union’s leaders had vowed to create a special $12-million fund to oppose two ballot measures sponsored by then-Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger that was seen as targeting public unions. They decided on a mid-year dues increase to pay for the campaign and said they would refund money later to those non-union employees who objected.
But a group of dissenting union members sued, alleging the forced special assessment violated their rights.
For decades, the Supreme Court has upheld an uneasy compromise between two rights. On the one hand, federal labor law protects the right of workers to form unions and the right of unions in some states to collect dues money from all employees to pay for collective bargaining.
On the other hand, the 1st Amendment bars the government from forcing persons, including public employees, to pay for political causes and candidates who they oppose. For that reason, public employee Unions must give dissenting members the right to opt out of paying the share of dues that goes to politics.
In the California case, the SEIU said it gave employees an annual notice of the dues and what share would go to supporting the Union and what share would go to politics. Its leaders maintained they were not required to send a mid-year notice at the time of the special assessment in 2005.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the union in a 2-1 decision, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Knox vs. SEIU.
In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.
"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1st Amendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector Union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the Unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, but did not join Alito’s opinion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented. They said dissenting members deserved the right to “opt out” of such a special assessment, but they disagreed with requiring the Union to get their advance approval to “opt in” to such a fund.
Breyer said he worried the court’s opinion could be read to mean that public unions must seek affirmative approval from all members before spending dues money on politics.
“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Breyer said.
“The question of how a nonmember indicates a desire not to pay constitutes an important part of this debate.… There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now
by David Savage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story
Thursday, June 21, 2012
States Layoffs Continue, Hurting Our Economy
Public Workers Face Continued Layoffs
Hurting the Recovery
Companies have been slowly adding workers for more than two years. But pink slips are still going out in a crucial area: government.
In California, the governor is threatening to eliminate 15,000 state jobs. When school begins in Cleveland this fall, more than 500 teachers probably will be out of work. And in Trenton — which has already cut a third of its police force, hundreds of school district employees and at least 150 other public workers — the only way the city will forestall the loss of 60 more firefighters is if a federal grant comes through.
Government payrolls grew in the early part of the recovery, largely because of federal stimulus measures. But since its postrecession peak in April 2009 (not counting temporary Census hiring), the public sector has shrunk by 657,000 jobs. The losses appeared to be tapering off earlier this year, but have accelerated for the last three months, creating the single biggest drag on the recovery in many areas.
With the economy expanding, albeit slowly, state tax revenues have started to recover and are estimated to exceed prerecession levels next year. Yet governors and legislatures are keeping a tight rein on spending, whether to refill depleted rainy-day funds or because of political inclination.
At the same time, costs for health care, social services, pensions and education are still rising. Fourteen states plan to resolve their budget gaps by reducing aid to local governments, according to a report by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers.
So while the federal government has grown a little since the recession, and many states have recently begun to add a few jobs, local governments are making new cuts that outweigh those gains. More than a quarter of municipal governments are planning layoffs this year, according to a survey by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence. They are being squeezed not only by declining federal and state support, but by their devastated property tax base.
“The unfortunate reality is our revenue streams have not rebounded,” said Timothy R. Hacker, the city manager of North Las Vegas, which has cut its work force to 1,300 from 2,300 and is about to lay off 130 more. “Shaking this recession is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Pennsylvania, for example, has shed 5,400 government jobs this year, and many school districts and social service agencies are contemplating more layoffs. “We have slipped to the middle of the pack in terms of job growth,” said Mark Price, a labor economist at the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. “And that was driven mainly by the fact that we lost so many jobs in the public sector.”
Public workers became a point of contention in the presidential campaign recently when Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, criticized President Obama for wanting to increase the number of government employees through stimulus measures. “He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” Mr. Romney said, adding: “It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
Mr. Obama has made the counterargument that during past recessions the government sector has grown, rather than shrunk. The White House later said he meant recessions and the recoveries that followed.
“Each time there was a recession with a Republican president,” he said, “we compensated by making sure that government didn’t see a drastic reduction in employment.”
If governments still employed the same percentage of the work force as they did in 2009, the unemployment rate would be a percentage point lower, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. At the pace so far this year, layoffs will siphon off $15 billion in spending power. Yale economists have said that if state and local governments had followed the pattern of previous recessions, they would have added at least 1.4 million jobs.
Conservatives have argued that the government was bloated after a hiring surge during the housing boom and is now returning to a more appropriate size. Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, criticized the president’s budget proposal to give states an additional $30 billion for teachers, police officers and firefighters. “Those new public sector jobs must be paid for with more debt and taxes borne by the private sector,” he wrote.
But those with disappearing jobs say that the effects are not just economic — they mean longer response times to fires, larger class sizes, and in some cases lawsuits when short-staffed agencies are unable to provide the required services.
After 32 firefighters were laid off in Muncie, Ind., the area that could be reached within eight minutes was cut by half, said Mike Whited, the president of the firefighters union. A federal grant restored 25 workers, but the city does not know if it will be renewed.
Mr. Whited chafed at portrayals of public workers as overpaid or greedy, saying his union and others had made concessions, including paying more for their health insurance and forfeiting raises. “I think a lot of people don’t understand what we do,” he said. “They’re looking for somebody to blame, and I think they’re being led the wrong way.”
Businesses can also be hindered by government cuts. They not only lose prospective middle-class customers but may face long waits for services. Roland Pott, a real estate broker and developer in Trenton, said that fewer city inspectors adds to construction delays. And the shortage of police officers means he must assuage the safety concerns of prospective tenants. “It makes it harder to lease a space or market a space because people are choosing between Trenton or another area,” he said.
Even if the overall economy improves, local governments are likely to lag behind. Property tax receipts, which are projected to fall slightly in 2012, “will be weak through at least fiscal 2014,” wrote Daniel White, an economist at Moody’s Analytics, in a report this month. “As a result, local government fiscal conditions will remain under pressure.”
Jobs in education have accounted for more than half the losses in local governments. Teachers and other school employees continue to receive layoff notices in California, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio, among others. In Los Angeles, about 11,700 teachers and others were notified in the spring. On Saturday, the teachers union ratified an agreement to save more than 4,000 jobs by taking furlough days.
To close a $64 million budget gap, the district in Clark County, Nevada, which encompasses Las Vegas, sent layoff notices to 400 teachers this month and will not fill 600 openings.
In Cleveland, the school district cited a $66 million budget deficit when announcing the layoff of more than 500 teachers this spring. David Quolke, president of the Cleveland Teachers Union, said it followed two years of cutbacks and $25 million in concessions from the union. He said that some classes would have more than 40 children.
Kimili Gulley, 32, has been teaching middle and high school math for nine years and expected her tenure to provide protection. But this month, she too is out of work. “So much emphasis is put on educating kids,” she said, “and yet funding is getting cut when it comes to educating kids. So it’s kind of hypocritical.”
By SHAILA DEWAN and MOTOKO RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/business/public-workers-face-continued-layoffs-and-recovery-is-hurt.html?_r=1&hp
Hurting the Recovery
Companies have been slowly adding workers for more than two years. But pink slips are still going out in a crucial area: government.
In California, the governor is threatening to eliminate 15,000 state jobs. When school begins in Cleveland this fall, more than 500 teachers probably will be out of work. And in Trenton — which has already cut a third of its police force, hundreds of school district employees and at least 150 other public workers — the only way the city will forestall the loss of 60 more firefighters is if a federal grant comes through.
Government payrolls grew in the early part of the recovery, largely because of federal stimulus measures. But since its postrecession peak in April 2009 (not counting temporary Census hiring), the public sector has shrunk by 657,000 jobs. The losses appeared to be tapering off earlier this year, but have accelerated for the last three months, creating the single biggest drag on the recovery in many areas.
With the economy expanding, albeit slowly, state tax revenues have started to recover and are estimated to exceed prerecession levels next year. Yet governors and legislatures are keeping a tight rein on spending, whether to refill depleted rainy-day funds or because of political inclination.
At the same time, costs for health care, social services, pensions and education are still rising. Fourteen states plan to resolve their budget gaps by reducing aid to local governments, according to a report by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers.
So while the federal government has grown a little since the recession, and many states have recently begun to add a few jobs, local governments are making new cuts that outweigh those gains. More than a quarter of municipal governments are planning layoffs this year, according to a survey by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence. They are being squeezed not only by declining federal and state support, but by their devastated property tax base.
“The unfortunate reality is our revenue streams have not rebounded,” said Timothy R. Hacker, the city manager of North Las Vegas, which has cut its work force to 1,300 from 2,300 and is about to lay off 130 more. “Shaking this recession is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Pennsylvania, for example, has shed 5,400 government jobs this year, and many school districts and social service agencies are contemplating more layoffs. “We have slipped to the middle of the pack in terms of job growth,” said Mark Price, a labor economist at the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. “And that was driven mainly by the fact that we lost so many jobs in the public sector.”
Public workers became a point of contention in the presidential campaign recently when Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, criticized President Obama for wanting to increase the number of government employees through stimulus measures. “He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” Mr. Romney said, adding: “It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
Mr. Obama has made the counterargument that during past recessions the government sector has grown, rather than shrunk. The White House later said he meant recessions and the recoveries that followed.
“Each time there was a recession with a Republican president,” he said, “we compensated by making sure that government didn’t see a drastic reduction in employment.”
If governments still employed the same percentage of the work force as they did in 2009, the unemployment rate would be a percentage point lower, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. At the pace so far this year, layoffs will siphon off $15 billion in spending power. Yale economists have said that if state and local governments had followed the pattern of previous recessions, they would have added at least 1.4 million jobs.
Conservatives have argued that the government was bloated after a hiring surge during the housing boom and is now returning to a more appropriate size. Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, criticized the president’s budget proposal to give states an additional $30 billion for teachers, police officers and firefighters. “Those new public sector jobs must be paid for with more debt and taxes borne by the private sector,” he wrote.
But those with disappearing jobs say that the effects are not just economic — they mean longer response times to fires, larger class sizes, and in some cases lawsuits when short-staffed agencies are unable to provide the required services.
After 32 firefighters were laid off in Muncie, Ind., the area that could be reached within eight minutes was cut by half, said Mike Whited, the president of the firefighters union. A federal grant restored 25 workers, but the city does not know if it will be renewed.
Mr. Whited chafed at portrayals of public workers as overpaid or greedy, saying his union and others had made concessions, including paying more for their health insurance and forfeiting raises. “I think a lot of people don’t understand what we do,” he said. “They’re looking for somebody to blame, and I think they’re being led the wrong way.”
Businesses can also be hindered by government cuts. They not only lose prospective middle-class customers but may face long waits for services. Roland Pott, a real estate broker and developer in Trenton, said that fewer city inspectors adds to construction delays. And the shortage of police officers means he must assuage the safety concerns of prospective tenants. “It makes it harder to lease a space or market a space because people are choosing between Trenton or another area,” he said.
Even if the overall economy improves, local governments are likely to lag behind. Property tax receipts, which are projected to fall slightly in 2012, “will be weak through at least fiscal 2014,” wrote Daniel White, an economist at Moody’s Analytics, in a report this month. “As a result, local government fiscal conditions will remain under pressure.”
Jobs in education have accounted for more than half the losses in local governments. Teachers and other school employees continue to receive layoff notices in California, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio, among others. In Los Angeles, about 11,700 teachers and others were notified in the spring. On Saturday, the teachers union ratified an agreement to save more than 4,000 jobs by taking furlough days.
To close a $64 million budget gap, the district in Clark County, Nevada, which encompasses Las Vegas, sent layoff notices to 400 teachers this month and will not fill 600 openings.
In Cleveland, the school district cited a $66 million budget deficit when announcing the layoff of more than 500 teachers this spring. David Quolke, president of the Cleveland Teachers Union, said it followed two years of cutbacks and $25 million in concessions from the union. He said that some classes would have more than 40 children.
Kimili Gulley, 32, has been teaching middle and high school math for nine years and expected her tenure to provide protection. But this month, she too is out of work. “So much emphasis is put on educating kids,” she said, “and yet funding is getting cut when it comes to educating kids. So it’s kind of hypocritical.”
By SHAILA DEWAN and MOTOKO RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/business/public-workers-face-continued-layoffs-and-recovery-is-hurt.html?_r=1&hp
N. Carolina Subs Labor Day
Charlotte NC Snubs Labor Day Parade, Unions Say
Jason Cherkis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
The Democratic National Committee's selection of Charlotte, N.C., to host its convention has angered labor Unions, with advocates arguing that the right-to-work state is one of the least supportive for union work, and that the city -- home to Bank of America's headquarters -- has no Unionized hotel workers. Now unions say they have another reason to gripe.
Charlotte is snubbing its local Labor Day parade, Union representatives claim, with the city citing security concerns though the parade takes place the day before the Democratic National Convention starts. The city has forced organizers to jettison the parade's traditional route -- passing through the heart of downtown -- for a more out-of-the-way route along the city's outer edge. City officials have also banned motorized vehicles from participating in the festivities, and even tried to ban marching bands, according to the parade organizers.`
Union representatives say something bigger than drum lines might be at stake, if what had once been considered a family-friendly event is now being considered threatening. "We are not really happy," says Cindy Foster, president of the Southern Piedmont Central Labor Council, a part of the AFL-CIO representing North Carolina. "The event is being treated more as a protest."
And now the parade may look a lot more like one, organizers say.
The hour-long parade has typically resembled nothing more than a community gathering to celebrate work and wave a few American flags, participants describe. High school bands marched alongside Teamsters in big trucks. Local dignitaries waved from convertibles and vintage cars. Firefighters rode by and marching bands strutted in sync. The parade's chairman, Ben Lee, estimates that about a third of the parade had been on wheels. "Everything's different this year," Lee says. "We knew last summer things were going to be different."
Convention organizers say any dealings over the parade are the city's responsibility. Robert A. Tufano, a spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, says the old parade route had been in the way of the convention activities. "With the DNC beginning the following day, security and transportation set-up and planning preclude the use of the traditional route," Tufano wrote in an email.
Tufano refutes Lee and Foster's claim that marching bands were at first barred from the parade. He adds that the parade's use of cars might still be on the table. "We will continue to discuss the possible inclusion of floats and/or motorized vehicles with the parade organizers in light of security concerns," he said.
Parade chairman Lee says he considers the security issue a legitimate reason for the parade downsizing and that the city has been cooperative during the negotiations. But Jeremy Sprinkle, the communications director for the North Carolina AFL-CIO, says the city's fight over parade has been unnecessary. "To the extent that the city is making it difficult, that doesn't paint the city of Charlotte in a good light," Sprinkle tells HuffPost.
At least the parade rerouting has stirred up Union members, Sprinkle adds. "It has gotten more people fired up about exercising their freedom of speech," he says.
Scott Thrower, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 379, is not so much a fired-up participant as a disappointed one. This time, he'll have to leave his float on the sidelines. Last year, he says the float marked the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 with a tribute to the twin towers. "We had 12 IBEW members who passed away," Thrower says. The display was 10 feet by 10 feet, and members recreated the towers out of wood.
"We always take pride in our float,'' Thrower says. "It's the one day a year we get to shine. It's not the Macy's Day parade, but we always get a good crowd."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Jason Cherkis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
The Democratic National Committee's selection of Charlotte, N.C., to host its convention has angered labor Unions, with advocates arguing that the right-to-work state is one of the least supportive for union work, and that the city -- home to Bank of America's headquarters -- has no Unionized hotel workers. Now unions say they have another reason to gripe.
Charlotte is snubbing its local Labor Day parade, Union representatives claim, with the city citing security concerns though the parade takes place the day before the Democratic National Convention starts. The city has forced organizers to jettison the parade's traditional route -- passing through the heart of downtown -- for a more out-of-the-way route along the city's outer edge. City officials have also banned motorized vehicles from participating in the festivities, and even tried to ban marching bands, according to the parade organizers.`
Union representatives say something bigger than drum lines might be at stake, if what had once been considered a family-friendly event is now being considered threatening. "We are not really happy," says Cindy Foster, president of the Southern Piedmont Central Labor Council, a part of the AFL-CIO representing North Carolina. "The event is being treated more as a protest."
And now the parade may look a lot more like one, organizers say.
The hour-long parade has typically resembled nothing more than a community gathering to celebrate work and wave a few American flags, participants describe. High school bands marched alongside Teamsters in big trucks. Local dignitaries waved from convertibles and vintage cars. Firefighters rode by and marching bands strutted in sync. The parade's chairman, Ben Lee, estimates that about a third of the parade had been on wheels. "Everything's different this year," Lee says. "We knew last summer things were going to be different."
Convention organizers say any dealings over the parade are the city's responsibility. Robert A. Tufano, a spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, says the old parade route had been in the way of the convention activities. "With the DNC beginning the following day, security and transportation set-up and planning preclude the use of the traditional route," Tufano wrote in an email.
Tufano refutes Lee and Foster's claim that marching bands were at first barred from the parade. He adds that the parade's use of cars might still be on the table. "We will continue to discuss the possible inclusion of floats and/or motorized vehicles with the parade organizers in light of security concerns," he said.
Parade chairman Lee says he considers the security issue a legitimate reason for the parade downsizing and that the city has been cooperative during the negotiations. But Jeremy Sprinkle, the communications director for the North Carolina AFL-CIO, says the city's fight over parade has been unnecessary. "To the extent that the city is making it difficult, that doesn't paint the city of Charlotte in a good light," Sprinkle tells HuffPost.
At least the parade rerouting has stirred up Union members, Sprinkle adds. "It has gotten more people fired up about exercising their freedom of speech," he says.
Scott Thrower, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 379, is not so much a fired-up participant as a disappointed one. This time, he'll have to leave his float on the sidelines. Last year, he says the float marked the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 with a tribute to the twin towers. "We had 12 IBEW members who passed away," Thrower says. The display was 10 feet by 10 feet, and members recreated the towers out of wood.
"We always take pride in our float,'' Thrower says. "It's the one day a year we get to shine. It's not the Macy's Day parade, but we always get a good crowd."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Stopping PTT Unfair Trade
How Can Labor Combat Obama's Secret 'NAFTA of the Pacific'?
Cynthia Phinney
Texans rallied against the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership, which would protect investors and not workers. Photo: CWA.
http://labornotes.org/2012/05/labor-combat-obama-secret-nafta-pacific
The latest project of corporations seeking to ease movement of capital around the globe is the Trans Pacific Partnership, known by activists as “NAFTA of the Pacific.”
Text of the proposal that leaked this week, released by theconsumer group Public Citizen, indicate the free trade proposal will continue strong rights for investors and weak protections for labor, the environment, and local democracy.
The agreement is drafted to include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United Sates. Discussion of inviting Canada, Mexico, and Japan has inspired protests in all three countries.
The TPP is being negotiated in secret. While the public has no access to the full text, 600 representatives from lobby groups like the American Petroleum Institute and corporations like Johnson & Johnson do have access, and negotiators seek those representatives’ advice.
Because of the difficulty of making change once the treaties are signed, activists have focused on pushing for transparency in the current process. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch circulated petitions nationally ahead of the recent TPP talks in Dallas.
Activists met the negotiators with creative protests at the meetings, including a presentation by members of the satirical direct action theater group Yes Men, who attended a gala to present U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk with a “Corporate Tool” award.
Activists have an uphill battle in Washington: Although candidate Barack Obama often spoke against the ill effects of NAFTA and similar trade deals, the president’s administration has inked trade deals with Korea and Colombia on the same model—over the strenuous objections of unions and other groups.
BAD TRACK RECORD
Because NAFTA-like trade agreements make it easier to move work to low-wage areas, or effectively threaten to do so, they have been devastating for workers in the U.S. Provisions promoting competition in agriculture have driven many subsistence farmers off their land and into cities to seek work, creating a downward wage spiral for workers in other countries as well.
Such trade deals include mechanisms that tie the hands of democratically elected governments to act in the public interest, if that interest interferes with competition and profits.
NAFTA and its descendants have protected corporations from government regulations that interfere with profits, and provided dispute mechanisms that bypass every government’s judicial system. TPP will do the same. If investors feel that laws or other regulations interfere with profitability, they may sue the government responsible for the regulation, and the case is decided by a trade tribunal—not by a court system accountable to citizens.
Corporations have used these mechanisms contained within trade deals to target many regulations. When California restricted use of the chemical MTBE, a gasoline additive, because of contamination of aquifers and municipal water supplies, the Canadian company Methanex sued under NAFTA, claiming that the state had cheated it out of $970 million in profits it would have made selling MTBE.
California defeated the claim, but only after a six-year, $4 million court battle not all governments would mount.
Local anti-sweatshop ordinances or laws mandating local purchasing, or other regulations designed to protect jobs or enhance the quality of jobs, appear ripe for similar attack.
The mere threat of being sued has already had a chilling effect on legislators. In one case, representatives from China contacted the Vermont legislature to say it must pull legislation under consideration that would regulate toxic toys and electronic waste disposal, because it might violate agreements that the U.S. is party to.
MAINE EVENT
In an effort to shift the discussion of trade fairness in a broad way instead of engaging just one fight at a time, unions and allies in Maine worked together in 2002-03 to pass legislation establishing the Maine Citizen Trade Policy Commission. The campaign was supported by a grassroots petition that gave signature-gatherers the opportunity to educate signers about the importance of trade issues.
The commission’s mandate is to monitor and respond to the effects of international trade on Maine, with input from diverse sectors of the population and regular hearings to educate both legislators and the public.
The commission now consists of legislators from both major parties and representatives of small farmers, small business, a nonprofit fair-trade organization, a Maine-based corporation engaged in international trade, a Maine-based manufacturer, an economic development organization, organized labor, a human rights organization, and an environmental organization, along with a health care professional.
Since its establishment in 2003, the commission has worked mostly by consensus and has taken positions supported by the full spectrum of commissioners, including the legislators from both parties.
Probably because of this broad support, the commission has helped to move Maine’s two Republican senators to vote against some trade agreements, including the 2005 Central America deal. The commission also helped put a Maine legislator on the national committee that advises U.S. trade negotiators.
The commission’s public hearings have made its legislators see how these agreements impact Mainers and the potential of our legislature to truly govern. Most Maine residents are all too aware of the job losses in our pulp, paper, and shoe industries as it has become easier to move those jobs. But many learned for the first time at a hearing that, for instance, Maine’s apple growers are increasingly struggling against fruit imported from China.
This kind of basic, ongoing assessment of trade deals and education about their effects is necessary but not sufficient to the task of creating a new framework for international trade that puts the needs of communities and the environment ahead of the profits of multinationals.
Cynthia Phinney is a member of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1837 in Maine and New Hampshire. She served as the labor representative on the Maine Citizen Trade Policy Commission 2003-2010. Find out more about the TPP and get involved atcitizen.org/trade. Information on the Maine commission can be found at maine.gov/legis/opla/citpol.htm.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
FED Directors Profited on Bail Outs
Federal Reserve Directors' Banks and Businesses Took $4 Trillion in Bailouts:
Report 'Inherent conflicts of interest' in 2008 bailout aftermath revealed
- Common Dreams staff
A report released today by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has revealed the names of 18 former and current directors from Federal Reserve Banks who directly benefited from financial bailouts after the 2008 crisis. The Reserve directors worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in bailout money allocated by the Federal Reserve.
Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, and and other Fed board members' benefited from Fed actions. (Reuters/Keith Bedford) Essentially, action taken by the Federal Reserve overwhelmingly benefited directors of the Federal Reserve, above other beneficiaries. The report titled Jamie Dimon Is Not Alone names the top 18 Reserve directors including Jamie Dimon who received the largest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance during the crisis.
"This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest Banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end," Sanders said.
More than $4 trillion in near zero-interest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance went to the banks and businesses of at least 18 current and former Federal Reserve regional bank directors in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse, according to Government Accountability Office records made public for the first time today by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the eve of Senate testimony by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Sanders (I-Vt.) released the detailed findings on Dimon and other Fed board members whose banks and businesses benefited from Fed(eral Reserve Bank) actions.
A Sanders provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act required the Government Accountability Office to investigate potential conflicts of interest. The Oct. 19, 2011 report by the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress laid out the findings, but did not name names. Sanders today released the names.
"This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end," Sanders said.
The GAO study found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve's board of directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest" and poses "reputational risks" to the Federal Reserve System.
In Dimon's case, JPMorgan received some $391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.
Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of the Ne
w York Fed's Board of Directors. Late in 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. He also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed's conflict of interest rules in late 2008. Unbeknownst to the Fed, Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009, according to the GAO.
In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.
Sen. Sanders on May 22 introduced legislation to prohibit Banking industry and business executives from serving as Directors of the 12 Federal Reserve regional Banks.
Report 'Inherent conflicts of interest' in 2008 bailout aftermath revealed
- Common Dreams staff
A report released today by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has revealed the names of 18 former and current directors from Federal Reserve Banks who directly benefited from financial bailouts after the 2008 crisis. The Reserve directors worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in bailout money allocated by the Federal Reserve.
Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, and and other Fed board members' benefited from Fed actions. (Reuters/Keith Bedford) Essentially, action taken by the Federal Reserve overwhelmingly benefited directors of the Federal Reserve, above other beneficiaries. The report titled Jamie Dimon Is Not Alone names the top 18 Reserve directors including Jamie Dimon who received the largest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance during the crisis.
"This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest Banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end," Sanders said.
More than $4 trillion in near zero-interest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance went to the banks and businesses of at least 18 current and former Federal Reserve regional bank directors in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse, according to Government Accountability Office records made public for the first time today by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the eve of Senate testimony by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Sanders (I-Vt.) released the detailed findings on Dimon and other Fed board members whose banks and businesses benefited from Fed(eral Reserve Bank) actions.
A Sanders provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act required the Government Accountability Office to investigate potential conflicts of interest. The Oct. 19, 2011 report by the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress laid out the findings, but did not name names. Sanders today released the names.
"This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end," Sanders said.
The GAO study found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve's board of directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest" and poses "reputational risks" to the Federal Reserve System.
In Dimon's case, JPMorgan received some $391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.
Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of the Ne
w York Fed's Board of Directors. Late in 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. He also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed's conflict of interest rules in late 2008. Unbeknownst to the Fed, Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009, according to the GAO.
In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.
Sen. Sanders on May 22 introduced legislation to prohibit Banking industry and business executives from serving as Directors of the 12 Federal Reserve regional Banks.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Women "Die-In" vs Restart of Nuke Plant
Women's "Die-In" against the Restart of Ooi
Nuke Plant to Stop The Criminal Madness
Published on Jun 10, 2012 by tokyobrowntabby2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQNd2ybiDg&feature=youtu.be
On June 7, 2012, about 70 women including 10 women from Fukushima did a "die-in" in front of the Prime Minister's Official Residence to protest against the restart of Ooi Nuclear Power Plant. Before the die-in, 10 Fukushima women visited the Cabinet Office and met with officials to submit a letter of requests addressed to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.
This video clip shows the words from the Fukushima women and part of the die-in.
On the very next day, June 8, 2012, Prime Minister Noda held a press conference and declared he would restart Ooi Nuclear Power Plant.
The original video (http://youtu.be/ODNhDhw_-VY) created by OurPlanet-TV (http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/287). OurPlanet-TV is an independent net-based media and welcomes donations.
Translation and captioning by tokyobrowntabby.
Video editing by sievert311 (http://www.youtube.com/user/sievert311).
Friday, June 1, 2012
Postal Unions Fight Back
Postal Workers, Community Allies Increase Pressure
as USPS Cuts Loom
Theresa Moran
As Congress dallies, some Postal workers and community activists are turning to civil disobedience to combat the sweeping cuts planned for the Postal Service. Union tops are sticking to a legislative strategy.
Ten postal worker and community activists in Portland, Oregon, were arrested May 24 when they occupied the city’s University Station Post Office, refusing to leave and blocking the closure of the office’s retail desk.
Nearly 100 supporters rallied outside as the activists inside held their ground, singing and holding banners proclaiming “Occupy the Post Office” and “No Closures! No Cuts!”
Police hauled them out after an hour and a half.
The occupation was organized by members of Communities and Postal Workers United, a cross-union network of postal worker activists. Other groups active in the “Occupy the Post Office” coalition include Jobs with Justice, the Rural Organizing Project, and Occupy groups.
The arrests, the first in the fight to save the post office, mark an escalation in tactics that CPWU organizers hope will spread to communities across the country.
According to Jamie Partridge, an arrestee from Occupy Portland and a retired postal worker, the action was meant to press Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe to halt his announced cuts and closures, which could slow mail and cost thousands of jobs as soon as this summer.
“It’s Congress and the President who can fix postal finances, but our immediate target is the Postmaster General,” Partridge said.
Activists with the Rural Organizing Project have occupied rural post offices in Oregon, and c+ommunity/labor coalitions against cuts have been active in New York, Baltimore, and rural Vermont.
The four postal unions (Mail Handlers, Postal Workers, Letter Carriers, and Rural Letter Carriers) have stuck to traditional rallies, jointly organizing a September 27 day of action with events in nearly 500 cities.
NO LEGISLATIVE FIX
The arrests come a month after the Senate passed a bill meant to provide relief to the financially struggling post office, a bill CPWU activists criticize for not going far enough.
Absent a fix from Congress, Donohoe’s plans for massive cuts to jobs and services will soon be underway. The Senate’s bill would do little to chase away the albatross dragging on USPS finances: an obligation passed by Congress in 2006 that requires the postal service to pre-fund the health benefits of retirees up to 75 years in the future. This requirement, not shared by any other federal agency, costs the postal service a hefty $5.5 billion per year.
The bill aims to ease the burden by allowing the postal service to make payments over a longer period of time but would also slash 100,000 postal jobs, largely through buyouts. If made law, the bill would make it harder for USPS to close small rural post offices and would preserve overnight delivery standards for three more years and Saturday delivery for two.
While some laud these provisions as victories—if enacted—there’s nothing to prevent the USPS from slashing standards after the protections expire. Indeed, postal managers have already said eliminating overnight delivery is one key strategy for cost savings in the near future.
Postal activists like Partridge, who’s on the Letter Carriers Branch 82 organizing committee, doubt the bill would do much to help. “It doesn’t actually take anything off the chopping block and it doesn’t fix the pre-funding issue,” he said.
Even leaders of the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers criticized the bill as “flawed” and “deeply flawed” for allowing cuts and not doing enough to relieve the financial burden that Congress itself placed upon the USPS.
CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
Of course, none of these provisions will become law until postal relief legislation passes in the House, which seems unlikely anytime soon. That’s just as well, as the leading bill is one sponsored by California Republican Darrell Issa, who seeks to slash postal jobs and services into oblivion. Issa has refused to let a more favorable bill with broad support among House members come to a vote.
In the wake of Congress’s failure to pass timely relief legislation, Donohoe is moving ahead with major cuts. Plans to slash hours at post offices and to close processing plants were announced just in time for expiration of a May 15 moratorium on cuts and closures.
On May 17, the Postal Service announced it would go forward with plans to close half of its 461 mail processing plants over the next two years. The first round of 48 closures will happen this summer. On the chopping block are the 28,000 jobs in those plants, positions represented by the Postal Workers.
The week before, USPS announced it would reduce hours at 13,000 rural post offices across the country. There are 31,500 post offices nationwide. In the rural locations, full-time postmasters will be replaced with part-timers. The USPS is pushing early retirement for 21,000 postmasters. It’s not yet clear how many other jobs will be lost.
The newly announced cuts are a departure from the Postal Service’s original plan. Last July, Donohoe said he would close 3,700 rural, urban, and suburban offices that the USPS identified as low-revenue.
In a May 9 press release, Donohoe said the switch from closures to shorter hours was made in response to public opposition and that the agency would not shutter any offices “without having provided a viable solution.”
NOT A VICTORY
Postal activists caution, however, against labeling Donohoe’s new plan a win.
“This is no victory at all. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re closing 3,700 or cutting hours at 13,000—you’re still cutting service,” says Tom Dodge, a truck driver at the Baltimore mail processing center and an organizer with Communities and Postal Workers United.
At most offices, service cuts will come in the form of slashing operating hours. Many retail desks could see their open hours whittled down to as little as two a day. Such drastic cuts will effectively render post offices inaccessible to “anybody who has to work for a living,” Partridge said. Towns with offices on the cuts list also have the option of replacing the office with a “village post office,” a retail desk located within a private business such as a gas station or Walmart. Village post offices can sell stamps and ship flat-rate packages, but can’t handle weighing packages, shipping express or registered mail, or selling money orders.
The desks are staffed not by unionized USPS workers but by non-union employees of the business where they’re located. Processing plant closures also mean serious problems for customers. Dodge knows firsthand how problematic these “consolidations” are. In November, the Frederick, Maryland, plant was closed and its mail sent to the Baltimore plant where Dodge works, 50 miles away.
The facility was so ill-prepared to accommodate the deluge of mail from Frederick that soon 22 semi trucks full of mail were lined up outside waiting to be unloaded. Mail has been delayed, sometimes comically so. Customers reported receiving circulars for Thanksgiving sales as late as February. Even after mail was diverted to Virginia and D.C. facilities, postal workers received reports of people receiving coupons weeks after they’d expired.
As Congress stalls in fixing the financial mess it created, activists are targeting Donohoe, who has ultimate authority to stop the closures and cuts. Some hope actions like the Portland occupation may pressure him into halting the cuts, while others are calling for his ouster.
Activists believe that Postmaster Donohoe’s cuts, by increasing customer dissatisfaction with the Postal Service, fit in to his master plan to shrink it to a fraction of its current self.
Labor Notes Theresa Moran
as USPS Cuts Loom
Theresa Moran
As Congress dallies, some Postal workers and community activists are turning to civil disobedience to combat the sweeping cuts planned for the Postal Service. Union tops are sticking to a legislative strategy.
Ten postal worker and community activists in Portland, Oregon, were arrested May 24 when they occupied the city’s University Station Post Office, refusing to leave and blocking the closure of the office’s retail desk.
Nearly 100 supporters rallied outside as the activists inside held their ground, singing and holding banners proclaiming “Occupy the Post Office” and “No Closures! No Cuts!”
Police hauled them out after an hour and a half.
The occupation was organized by members of Communities and Postal Workers United, a cross-union network of postal worker activists. Other groups active in the “Occupy the Post Office” coalition include Jobs with Justice, the Rural Organizing Project, and Occupy groups.
The arrests, the first in the fight to save the post office, mark an escalation in tactics that CPWU organizers hope will spread to communities across the country.
According to Jamie Partridge, an arrestee from Occupy Portland and a retired postal worker, the action was meant to press Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe to halt his announced cuts and closures, which could slow mail and cost thousands of jobs as soon as this summer.
“It’s Congress and the President who can fix postal finances, but our immediate target is the Postmaster General,” Partridge said.
Activists with the Rural Organizing Project have occupied rural post offices in Oregon, and c+ommunity/labor coalitions against cuts have been active in New York, Baltimore, and rural Vermont.
The four postal unions (Mail Handlers, Postal Workers, Letter Carriers, and Rural Letter Carriers) have stuck to traditional rallies, jointly organizing a September 27 day of action with events in nearly 500 cities.
NO LEGISLATIVE FIX
The arrests come a month after the Senate passed a bill meant to provide relief to the financially struggling post office, a bill CPWU activists criticize for not going far enough.
Absent a fix from Congress, Donohoe’s plans for massive cuts to jobs and services will soon be underway. The Senate’s bill would do little to chase away the albatross dragging on USPS finances: an obligation passed by Congress in 2006 that requires the postal service to pre-fund the health benefits of retirees up to 75 years in the future. This requirement, not shared by any other federal agency, costs the postal service a hefty $5.5 billion per year.
The bill aims to ease the burden by allowing the postal service to make payments over a longer period of time but would also slash 100,000 postal jobs, largely through buyouts. If made law, the bill would make it harder for USPS to close small rural post offices and would preserve overnight delivery standards for three more years and Saturday delivery for two.
While some laud these provisions as victories—if enacted—there’s nothing to prevent the USPS from slashing standards after the protections expire. Indeed, postal managers have already said eliminating overnight delivery is one key strategy for cost savings in the near future.
Postal activists like Partridge, who’s on the Letter Carriers Branch 82 organizing committee, doubt the bill would do much to help. “It doesn’t actually take anything off the chopping block and it doesn’t fix the pre-funding issue,” he said.
Even leaders of the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers criticized the bill as “flawed” and “deeply flawed” for allowing cuts and not doing enough to relieve the financial burden that Congress itself placed upon the USPS.
CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
Of course, none of these provisions will become law until postal relief legislation passes in the House, which seems unlikely anytime soon. That’s just as well, as the leading bill is one sponsored by California Republican Darrell Issa, who seeks to slash postal jobs and services into oblivion. Issa has refused to let a more favorable bill with broad support among House members come to a vote.
In the wake of Congress’s failure to pass timely relief legislation, Donohoe is moving ahead with major cuts. Plans to slash hours at post offices and to close processing plants were announced just in time for expiration of a May 15 moratorium on cuts and closures.
On May 17, the Postal Service announced it would go forward with plans to close half of its 461 mail processing plants over the next two years. The first round of 48 closures will happen this summer. On the chopping block are the 28,000 jobs in those plants, positions represented by the Postal Workers.
The week before, USPS announced it would reduce hours at 13,000 rural post offices across the country. There are 31,500 post offices nationwide. In the rural locations, full-time postmasters will be replaced with part-timers. The USPS is pushing early retirement for 21,000 postmasters. It’s not yet clear how many other jobs will be lost.
The newly announced cuts are a departure from the Postal Service’s original plan. Last July, Donohoe said he would close 3,700 rural, urban, and suburban offices that the USPS identified as low-revenue.
In a May 9 press release, Donohoe said the switch from closures to shorter hours was made in response to public opposition and that the agency would not shutter any offices “without having provided a viable solution.”
NOT A VICTORY
Postal activists caution, however, against labeling Donohoe’s new plan a win.
“This is no victory at all. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re closing 3,700 or cutting hours at 13,000—you’re still cutting service,” says Tom Dodge, a truck driver at the Baltimore mail processing center and an organizer with Communities and Postal Workers United.
At most offices, service cuts will come in the form of slashing operating hours. Many retail desks could see their open hours whittled down to as little as two a day. Such drastic cuts will effectively render post offices inaccessible to “anybody who has to work for a living,” Partridge said. Towns with offices on the cuts list also have the option of replacing the office with a “village post office,” a retail desk located within a private business such as a gas station or Walmart. Village post offices can sell stamps and ship flat-rate packages, but can’t handle weighing packages, shipping express or registered mail, or selling money orders.
The desks are staffed not by unionized USPS workers but by non-union employees of the business where they’re located. Processing plant closures also mean serious problems for customers. Dodge knows firsthand how problematic these “consolidations” are. In November, the Frederick, Maryland, plant was closed and its mail sent to the Baltimore plant where Dodge works, 50 miles away.
The facility was so ill-prepared to accommodate the deluge of mail from Frederick that soon 22 semi trucks full of mail were lined up outside waiting to be unloaded. Mail has been delayed, sometimes comically so. Customers reported receiving circulars for Thanksgiving sales as late as February. Even after mail was diverted to Virginia and D.C. facilities, postal workers received reports of people receiving coupons weeks after they’d expired.
As Congress stalls in fixing the financial mess it created, activists are targeting Donohoe, who has ultimate authority to stop the closures and cuts. Some hope actions like the Portland occupation may pressure him into halting the cuts, while others are calling for his ouster.
Activists believe that Postmaster Donohoe’s cuts, by increasing customer dissatisfaction with the Postal Service, fit in to his master plan to shrink it to a fraction of its current self.
Labor Notes Theresa Moran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)