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