Attacks on Teachers, Airline Workers, and Public Pensions in Canada Highlight Need for a Fighting Labor Movement
by Roger Annis
A trend is taking hold across Canada of working class resistance to the capitalist crisis and attacks by governments and corporations on workers' rights and the social wage. Library workers in the city of Toronto and transit and university workers in Halifax recently went on strike, as did daycare workers in Quebec. Workers at Air Canada have staged a series of protests and strikes in the past year. Teachers and students in British Columbia recently struck for better education, while in Quebec students are waging a spectacular mass campaign against rises in post-secondary tuition fees. Provincial government workers are restive.
Some 300,000 government service workers in British Columbia are bargaining a new collective agreement and saying no to the same wage and services freeze the government is seeking to impose on teachers. The government of Ontario recently delivered a budget that aims to cut billions of dollars in services and thousands of jobs. Equally noticeable is the lag in organizing the broad solidarity necessary for these struggles to win. This article examines the two sides of a dynamic and unfolding reality.
Teachers Defend Education
The 41,000 members of the BC Teachers' Federation (BCTF) are in the midst of a bitter collective bargaining confrontation with the provincial government. They are fighting a two-year salary freeze that the Liberal government is seeking to impose. They also want to win back the right to bargain class sizes and other aspects of their work that directly affect the quality of the education they provide. Teachers began job action at the beginning of the school year, last September, declining to participate in voluntary activities and cooperate with administrators, including refusing to fill out report cards. Job action escalated into a three-day strike beginning March 5 when the government announced it would impose a draconian law to strip away the right to strike and send disputed issues to a skewed "mediation" process. Bill 22 says mediation must correspond to the government's guideline of a two-year, "net zero" increase to education spending. The bill was passed into law on March 17. It imposes stiff penalties on the union and individual teachers for strike or other job action. Further strike action appears unlikely. The union is mulling participation in the government's mediation, something it said earlier it would not do. It recently announced it would mount a major effort over the coming year to unseat the government. The next provincial election will take place in May 2013. Support for the teachers' struggle has been very strong in the province, including a province-wide strike by secondary school students on March 2. But it has been lacking from other unions. Notwithstanding the fact that the government and its popularity is "in free fall," according to the BCTF and confirmed by recent polls, the broader labor movement in the province has not mobilized in support of teachers. The BCTF expects it will get a more sympathetic ear should the opposition New Democratic Party get elected in 2013. The trade union-based party is leading the Liberals in the polls by a huge margin. But its leaders have stated they will not repeal Bill 22 and they have not said if and how they would satisfy teacher/parent/student grievances.
Airline Workers Get Hammered
Airline workers in Canada suffered a blow on March 18 and 19 when the aircraft maintenance company AVEOS staged a bankruptcy that has thrown some 2,600 highly skilled workers out of work in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. The company said it is out of money and may not even meet its salary and pension obligations to workers.The flagrant abuse of this bankruptcy spectacle has angered and offended the people of Quebec in particular. About 1,800 of the affected workers are in Montreal. For several days following the bankruptcy announcement, AVEOS workers protested and blocked traffic leading into the corporate offices of Air Canada in the city.On March 21, the National Assembly of Quebec (provincial government) passed a resolution unanimously demanding the federal government undertake "all possible legal recourse" to keep the AVEOS facility open. Talks and legal actions are underway to revive some or all of the shuttered AVEOS/Air Canada operation, including using money from the state-assisted Solidarity (capital investment) Fund of the Quebec Federation of Labour.In British Columbia, the legislative assembly unanimously adopted a resolution in early April that asks the federal government to accord to the AVEOS facility in Vancouver whatever job protection might be won in other cities.
Declining Conditions of Airline Workers
AVEOS was created in 2007 by Air Canada, the largest airline in the country. It was a spinoff of a portion of its aircraft maintenance division. The airline shifted its heavy maintenance work to the shadow company while keeping its line maintenance in house. ("Heavy maintenance" is the major overhaul that aircraft routinely require in order to remain safe to fly. "Line maintenance" is the repair and maintenance required by aircraft while in service, typically retained by airlines for reasons of quality control and speed of service.)Around the time that AVEOS was created, Air Canada purchased a heavy maintenance aircraft repair facility in El Salvador, where wages are about 15 percent of what the company pays in Canada. Although that facility became part of AVEOS, its ownership structure was jerry-rigged to keep it unaffected by a future 'bankruptcy' of its parent. The airline thus became well placed to shift its heavy maintenance elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.The moves to offload maintenance of aircraft were only the latest in a series of steps by investors to loot Air Canada of its accumulated value following the privatization of the airline in 1988. Among the many moves that have earned hundreds of millions of dollars for the directors and shareholders of Air Canada since its privatization are: Lowering of salaries and benefits of operations workers (cleaning, baggage handling, handing of planes at terminals, etc.) through a two-tier system of remuneration of new hires. Expansion of part-time and on-call work wherever possible. Purchase of Air Canada's largest competitor, Canadian Airlines, in 2001 and then declaration of insolvency in 2003 to liquidate debt from that and other acquisitions. Sale in the early 2000s of Air Canada's engine repair shops to a foreign buyer specializing in that work.Sale of the flyer rewards division of the airline. Creation of a short-haul (under three hours of flying), lower-wage division of the airline, called "Jazz." The gradual breakdown of common bargaining among the three or four major unions at the airline.Other attacks on Air Canada workers are taking place simultaneous to the AVEOS shutdown, notably against the right to bargain collective agreements. Beginning last year, the federal government now routinely outlaws strikes at the airline. Bargaining in 2011 prompted job actions by two of the three major unions at Air Canada -- the Canadian Autoworkers Union (ticket agents) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (flight attendants) -- but they also prompted anti-strike laws. No significant protest was mounted either by the affected unions or by the broader labor movement. Negotiated agreements with the CAW and CUPE included a new, lower-tier pension for new employees. This year, the government threatened the same anti-strike measure against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and its pilots association. Talks with the IAM are currently in mediation where the CAW/CUPE pattern will weigh heavily. Looming over the entire situation at the airline is the threat of a repeat performance of the 2003 bankruptcy. This could set the stage, as in 2003, to pressure workers for more wage and benefit concessions. Air Canada has unfunded pension obligations of more than $2 billion for its past and present employees.
Attack on Canada's Public Pension Plan
On March 29, the Conservative government that was re-elected with a parliamentary majority last year announced an unprecedented attack on Canada's public pension plan. The measure was contained in a budget projection that also targets cuts of key public services and several tens of thousands of jobs. If the pension measure passes through Parliament, the age of eligibility of the second tier of the pension plan, Old Age Security, will pass from age 65 to 67. OAS pays some $550 per month to pension earners of annual incomes below $69,000. An earlier attack in 2009 increased the penalties for those drawing the first tier of the national pension, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), before the age of 65. Those drawing CPP at the earliest eligible age, 60, for example, will be penalized for life by 42 per cent, compared to the previous 30 per cent. This was a bipartisan attack supported by the then-official opposition party, the Liberals.
Lessons
Some important lessons flow from these current battles. The main one is the need for mass mobilization of workers if employer attacks are to be turned back. The days of relying on good will or favorable court decisions are long past.The public pension situation is instructive. In 2010, pressure from members was building on Canada's unions and their political party, the NDP, to launch a mass campaign to increase benefits of the Canada Pension Plan. This was fueled, in part, by the growing practice of companies (cf. Air Canada) to underfund their employee pension plans.The federal government deflected the mounting pressure by promising to legislate increases to the CPP. But it set a condition on union and NDP leaders: "Don't pressure us with mass actions on Parliament Hill." Union leaders acquiesced, the informal deal was on. Months later, the government reneged, announcing instead a new plan to give tax breaks to employee/employer-funded pension plans that invest in financial markets. In 1985, a mass movement dubbed "grey power" arose when the federal government of the time sought to lessen inflation protection for the public pension plan. No equivalent protest is happening in response to these latest cuts, but that could quickly change. Teachers in BC have learned firsthand the dubious benefit of court appeals as substitutes for strikes or other mass action. An appeal by the BCTF of two anti-union and anti-education laws adopted in 2002 took more than eight years to wind its way through the courts. The BC Supreme Court finally ruled that Bills 27 and 28 violated some of the basic rights of teachers. In the new Bill 22, the government formally repealed Bills 27 and 28 and then placed nearly identical language in the new law!Hospital workers in BC have been similarly disappointed by the courts. In 2004, the provincial government outlawed a province-wide strike of hospital workers and then proceeded to privatize some 8,500 jobs of hospital support staff and cut the wages of all other staff. Three and a half years later, the BC Supreme Court ruled the law illegal. The affected union declared a big victory, but the court's remedy was a miserly financial compensation of a few thousand dollars to those workers who lost their jobs.When AVEOS was created in 2007, every worker at Air Canada feared this was a move to eventually shift heavy maintenance work to lower-wage jurisdictions in other countries. Workers staged protests when the news broke.Leaders of the IAM and of provincial and federal federations of labor made blustery speeches saying the decision would not be allowed to pass. But the speeches ended in one feeble action -- an appeal to a federal court asking it to rule that the creation of AVEOS was in violation of the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act. That act was created to soften union opposition to the privatization of Air Canada, then a state enterprise. It directed Air Canada to maintain its "maintenance work" at three facilities -- Montreal, Toronto. and Winnipeg.1
In 2010, a federal judge accepted Air Canada's word that it planned to keep maintenance work in the targeted cities. The judge conveniently ignored a precise interpretation of what "maintenance work" constituted. Incredibly, if the IAM thought that AVEOS was being set up for an eventual downfall, it never said so publicly or acted accordingly. It turns out that Air Canada helped to precipitate the "bankruptcy" of AVEOS by quietly directing its work away from it. The long history of the dismantling of Air Canada -- what can only be described as the looting of a former public enterprise -- goes largely unmentioned by all parties involved.
What Road Ahead for Workers?
Private employers and especially federal and provincial governments are stepping up their attacks on jobs and public services. A more militant and coordinated response is needed by the union movement. All indications show the desire of workers for just such a course. Last year, the Occupy movement was widely hailed. Strike activity is on the upswing. Air Canada workers show the restive mood -- rank and file-initiated strikes and protests have become near commonplace and workers are typically rejecting concession agreements negotiated by their leaders.Working-class resistance has been strongest in Quebec. The social democratic NDP won a landslide victory in the province during the 2011 federal election. A mass student movement is refusing to bow to government threats and has mobilized tens of thousands in the streets.The challenge before the unions is to act as a social movement on behalf of the entire working class and break from the mould of job trusts focused on looking after the narrow interests of their dues-paying members. In the wake of the federal budget that attacked the OAS, newly elected leader of the NDP Tom Mulcair said the party would do "everything possible within the Parliamentary arena" to oppose the budget. But much more is needed. While it is useful to have a voice in Parliament on behalf of workers' interest, current battles will be won in the streets and on the picket lines. That is where attention and solidarity must be directed. Furthermore, all this will help open the door to the political challenge to capitalist rule that is needed and increasingly on the agenda. 1 The Air Canada maintenance facility in Vancouver was not named in the 1988 law because Air Canada only acquired it in 2001 through the purchase of Canadian Airlines.
Roger Annis may be contacted at rogerannis@telus.net
URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org
Showing posts with label Bill Floyd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Floyd. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2012
Public Worker Pension Assault
Ruling class takes aim at public worker pensions
John Dillon and Glen Brown
Remarks made by Illinois Teachers Retirement system (TRS) Executive Director Dick Ingram became an immediate subject of a recent panel discussion held by the Better Government Association on April 9, 2012, at Loyola University in Chicago.
Two members of the pension committee convened by Governor Quinn had an opportunity to speak about what “we all face” in light of increased pension costs because of the unfunded liability (money now owed and that has not been paid into the fund during several governors’ tenures).
Panelist at the Better Government Association forum on the TRS situation were (left to right) State Rep. Darlene Senger, Henry Bayer (AFSCME), Tyrone Fahner (Civic Committee), and Elaine Nekritz (State Rep.). Substance photo by Todd Mertz. Representatives Darlene Senger and Elaine Nekritz spoke about the nature of the deficit problem and moving forward to make adjustments to the retirement system. Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 31, and Tyrone Fahner, president of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago were also present.
Fahner was quick to remind everyone in the audience that “out of a sense of responsibility to his membership, Mr. Dick Ingram, head of the TRS, has admitted to the pension system’s insolvency”; that the “real numbers were hidden.”
Rank-and-file members from the public unions in the room were silent, not out of surprise but because once again they were hearing Ingram’s words being used to make a case that “cuts” to the current teachers and, quite possibly the retirees, were necessary, despite the constitutional provision that protects such changes.
When asked “what are the limits of pension reform? Where must we stop because of the constitution,” Fahner replied that “the only limits are that we can’t take what’s already been earned. That would be inappropriate and unconstitutional.” Nonetheless, Fahner said that changes going forward can be “frozen” or “changed”; that Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and Parliamentarian of the Illinois Senate “Madiar is wrong” about his analysis regarding a current employee’s vested right when he or she enters the pension system. He also said “if we do nothing, everyone is screwed.”
Senger added “SB 512 wasn’t unconstitutional. It wasn’t taking away benefits. We have a system that is failing” and “every time you delay a solution, it becomes costly.” Senger also declared that the employer (school district) should pay the normal costs since the employer makes the contracts, and that “the COLA is the problem” and “should be suspended like in Rhode Island.”
The Chicago Tribune had cited Ingram a few days earlier: “With insolvency looming in as little as 17 years, the head of the state’s largest pension fund is a warning that pension benefits promised to teachers, starting with those already retired, may need to be cut” (Teachers and pension cuts. Chicago Tribune 4 April 2012). Another article by Chris Wetterich in the Springfield’s State Journal Register had quoted Ingram: “What we are saying is that the number is so bad that you have to start having those conversations. The reality is that if you look at the pension math, the single biggest cost is the COLA” (31 March 2012).
The reactionary firestorm was to be expected. Rank-and-file, as well as the IFT and AFCSME, were shrill in their condemnations of Ingram’s sudden and unexplained change. The Illinois Education Association likewise responded but with close connections to the TRS (the president of IEA is also a TRS trustee): “It’s important to understand that the current situation is very serious but capable of being resolved. TRS, SURS, and other state systems can be saved, but we need to understand that it will not be easy or inexpensive."
Meanwhile, Ingram has been eager to make clear that his statements were a warning regarding what would happen as a result of the state’s failure to fund or lessen the funding to the teachers’ pension. Those were, according to Ingram, the reasons for the stress tests conducted by Buck Consultants. In short, his words were being used “out of context.” To make this even more clear, Ingram printed a clarification in the Chicago Tribune’s Voice of the People on Tuesday, April 10 that stated: “Neither I nor the Teachers Retirement System is proposing any changes in member benefits, especially a reduction in the current annual cost-of-living adjustment… It is not our role at TRS to suggest a solution to this problem.”
Nevertheless, in the same editorial, Ingram once again warns that he has told his board that significant changes must occur in order to avoid insolvency, and these changes need come from newly-generated revenue sources. He further said “Any of these significant changes can only be made by the General Assembly.” For the media, Ingram outlined the “possible areas where lawmakers may look for a solution. There are only a few options available, and none are very pleasant to discuss – changes in the cost-of-living adjustment, in member contributions, in retirement age and in the benefit formula, as well as increased revenues through taxes.”
When the question of finding revenue rather than cutting pension benefits was asked, Senger’s immediate response was “giving an ‘over-spender’ [the State of Illinois] more money is not an answer.” Fahner then asked the audience in the forum: “Do you want your taxes to go up?” While no one wants an increase in taxes, and most people want an equitable and fair taxation for all, Fahner reminded the audience that under Illinois’ current tax structure, they [the middle class] would take the brunt of any increase). Bayer countered that Fahner “wants to fix the pensions and roll back $6 billion worth of taxes” on the wealthy and corporations.
When asked “are taxpayers going to take another hit?” Nekritz responded that “we knew that the [income] tax increase wasn’t going to solve the pension problem.” When asked whether the retirement age for current teachers be raised, Senger, Nekritz and Fahner said “yes”; Bayer said “no.” When asked whether the COLA be a part of the pension solution? Senger, Nekritz and Fahner said “yes”; Bayer said “no.” When asked whether the state should pay what it owes, all of them said “yes.”
They will not be the establishment of a broader tax base so rates are “lower in order to minimize the impact…” and because a broader tax base offers “diversification since it spreads the burden of taxation among more payers than a narrow basis does” (National Conference of State Legislatures).
They will not be the taxation of services to increase needed revenue despite the fact that “the tax system in the State of Illinois does not reflect today’s economic realities” (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning) and the State of Illinois taxes less than one-third of the 168 potentially-taxable services (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
Moreover, it will not be the elimination of welfare for the rich even though “the State of Illinois is among 10 states in the nation with the highest taxes paid by its poorest citizens at 13 percent” (the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy), and one of the few states where the top five percent of income earners pay the least amount of sales, excise, property and income taxes because of federal deduction offsets or regressive tax loopholes from itemized deductions, such as capital gains tax breaks and deductions for federal income taxes paid that are coupled with a flat-rate structure (the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). They will be suggestions to cut the constitutional benefits of teachers, however.
John Dillon and Glen Brown
Remarks made by Illinois Teachers Retirement system (TRS) Executive Director Dick Ingram became an immediate subject of a recent panel discussion held by the Better Government Association on April 9, 2012, at Loyola University in Chicago.
Two members of the pension committee convened by Governor Quinn had an opportunity to speak about what “we all face” in light of increased pension costs because of the unfunded liability (money now owed and that has not been paid into the fund during several governors’ tenures).
Panelist at the Better Government Association forum on the TRS situation were (left to right) State Rep. Darlene Senger, Henry Bayer (AFSCME), Tyrone Fahner (Civic Committee), and Elaine Nekritz (State Rep.). Substance photo by Todd Mertz. Representatives Darlene Senger and Elaine Nekritz spoke about the nature of the deficit problem and moving forward to make adjustments to the retirement system. Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 31, and Tyrone Fahner, president of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago were also present.
Fahner was quick to remind everyone in the audience that “out of a sense of responsibility to his membership, Mr. Dick Ingram, head of the TRS, has admitted to the pension system’s insolvency”; that the “real numbers were hidden.”
Rank-and-file members from the public unions in the room were silent, not out of surprise but because once again they were hearing Ingram’s words being used to make a case that “cuts” to the current teachers and, quite possibly the retirees, were necessary, despite the constitutional provision that protects such changes.
When asked “what are the limits of pension reform? Where must we stop because of the constitution,” Fahner replied that “the only limits are that we can’t take what’s already been earned. That would be inappropriate and unconstitutional.” Nonetheless, Fahner said that changes going forward can be “frozen” or “changed”; that Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and Parliamentarian of the Illinois Senate “Madiar is wrong” about his analysis regarding a current employee’s vested right when he or she enters the pension system. He also said “if we do nothing, everyone is screwed.”
Senger added “SB 512 wasn’t unconstitutional. It wasn’t taking away benefits. We have a system that is failing” and “every time you delay a solution, it becomes costly.” Senger also declared that the employer (school district) should pay the normal costs since the employer makes the contracts, and that “the COLA is the problem” and “should be suspended like in Rhode Island.”
The Chicago Tribune had cited Ingram a few days earlier: “With insolvency looming in as little as 17 years, the head of the state’s largest pension fund is a warning that pension benefits promised to teachers, starting with those already retired, may need to be cut” (Teachers and pension cuts. Chicago Tribune 4 April 2012). Another article by Chris Wetterich in the Springfield’s State Journal Register had quoted Ingram: “What we are saying is that the number is so bad that you have to start having those conversations. The reality is that if you look at the pension math, the single biggest cost is the COLA” (31 March 2012).
The reactionary firestorm was to be expected. Rank-and-file, as well as the IFT and AFCSME, were shrill in their condemnations of Ingram’s sudden and unexplained change. The Illinois Education Association likewise responded but with close connections to the TRS (the president of IEA is also a TRS trustee): “It’s important to understand that the current situation is very serious but capable of being resolved. TRS, SURS, and other state systems can be saved, but we need to understand that it will not be easy or inexpensive."
Meanwhile, Ingram has been eager to make clear that his statements were a warning regarding what would happen as a result of the state’s failure to fund or lessen the funding to the teachers’ pension. Those were, according to Ingram, the reasons for the stress tests conducted by Buck Consultants. In short, his words were being used “out of context.” To make this even more clear, Ingram printed a clarification in the Chicago Tribune’s Voice of the People on Tuesday, April 10 that stated: “Neither I nor the Teachers Retirement System is proposing any changes in member benefits, especially a reduction in the current annual cost-of-living adjustment… It is not our role at TRS to suggest a solution to this problem.”
Nevertheless, in the same editorial, Ingram once again warns that he has told his board that significant changes must occur in order to avoid insolvency, and these changes need come from newly-generated revenue sources. He further said “Any of these significant changes can only be made by the General Assembly.” For the media, Ingram outlined the “possible areas where lawmakers may look for a solution. There are only a few options available, and none are very pleasant to discuss – changes in the cost-of-living adjustment, in member contributions, in retirement age and in the benefit formula, as well as increased revenues through taxes.”
When the question of finding revenue rather than cutting pension benefits was asked, Senger’s immediate response was “giving an ‘over-spender’ [the State of Illinois] more money is not an answer.” Fahner then asked the audience in the forum: “Do you want your taxes to go up?” While no one wants an increase in taxes, and most people want an equitable and fair taxation for all, Fahner reminded the audience that under Illinois’ current tax structure, they [the middle class] would take the brunt of any increase). Bayer countered that Fahner “wants to fix the pensions and roll back $6 billion worth of taxes” on the wealthy and corporations.
When asked “are taxpayers going to take another hit?” Nekritz responded that “we knew that the [income] tax increase wasn’t going to solve the pension problem.” When asked whether the retirement age for current teachers be raised, Senger, Nekritz and Fahner said “yes”; Bayer said “no.” When asked whether the COLA be a part of the pension solution? Senger, Nekritz and Fahner said “yes”; Bayer said “no.” When asked whether the state should pay what it owes, all of them said “yes.”
In seven days, the pension committee will send its recommendations to Governor Quinn. They will not include increases in revenue such as a graduated income tax that has been recommended by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Economic Policy and Research, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, and United for a Fair Economy, et al.
They will not be the establishment of a broader tax base so rates are “lower in order to minimize the impact…” and because a broader tax base offers “diversification since it spreads the burden of taxation among more payers than a narrow basis does” (National Conference of State Legislatures).
They will not be the taxation of services to increase needed revenue despite the fact that “the tax system in the State of Illinois does not reflect today’s economic realities” (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning) and the State of Illinois taxes less than one-third of the 168 potentially-taxable services (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
Moreover, it will not be the elimination of welfare for the rich even though “the State of Illinois is among 10 states in the nation with the highest taxes paid by its poorest citizens at 13 percent” (the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy), and one of the few states where the top five percent of income earners pay the least amount of sales, excise, property and income taxes because of federal deduction offsets or regressive tax loopholes from itemized deductions, such as capital gains tax breaks and deductions for federal income taxes paid that are coupled with a flat-rate structure (the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). They will be suggestions to cut the constitutional benefits of teachers, however.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
LA Port Driver Vote for IBT Union
LOS ANGELES – Amidst jubilant chants of “Yes We Did!” in Spanish and English, a brave group of professional truck drivers who haul brand-name fashion imports celebrated late evening news that they trounced in their closely-watched election to unite as Teamsters, despite their foreign employer’s vicious and expensive year-long campaign to intimidate workplace leaders and suppress their free choice.
The results were 46 – 15 in favor of the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced. The drivers will celebrate their history-making outside of Toll Group’s truck yard at Thursday’s shift change at 4 pm PST along with allies and their counterparts at other companies who also seek to unionize; members of the media are welcome,
710 East G Street, Wilmington.
“Our victory means we are finally getting closer to the American Dream. If we can win, I know other port truck drivers across the U.S. can unite just like we did,” said Orlando Ayala, who has hauled at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for nearly 10 years. “A voice on the job means management can no longer humiliate us or force us to suffer in poverty while they profit,” added the father of 3, who questioned why Toll created such an exploitive and union-hostile environment for its workforce here, contrary to its practice overseas.
Toll Group is an iconic brand Down Under but the Melbourne-based trucking and logistics carrier has saturated that market and must expand in the U.S. to survive. The $8.8 billion giant freely negotiates with and benefits from its unionized Australian workforce, and does business with U.S. companies with strict responsible contractor policies like Under Armour, making Toll’s top athletic apparel customer the<http://www.change.org/petitions/under-armour-don-t-let-your-trucking-carrier-fire-a-mom-of-three-for-needing-to-pee> target of a current petition on the online activist website, Change.org.
The victory is further being cheered by local and international supply chain workers, organized labor, and community allies as a trailblazing private sector win in a market arena that decimated middle-class jobs when it was deregulated in 1980; port trucking, one of America’s most dangerous industries, became notorious for treating workers as disposable, is rife with health and safety violations and has remained virtually union-free since. “These first-rate truck drivers decided to form their union after being treated as second-class citizens under third-world working conditions for too long,” said Teamsters Vice President Fred Potter and Port Division Director. “Now these courageous employees have inspired other port drivers to fight for good, middle-class jobs at America’s port’s nationwide, and the Teamsters and our coalition are going to be here to help them do it.”“I am ready to fight at all costs with my co-workers, for our families, and for our union next,” said Edgar Sanchez who has been misclassified at the ports for over 16 years. The industry scam endured by Edgar and his fellow truck drivers was the focus of an <open">http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/12/an-open-letter-from-america%E2%80%99s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports/>open letter from drivers that made the rounds on the Internet during Occupy Wall Street protests last December.
The illegal practice has been a focus of a crackdown by the Department of Labor and it was further exposed on <CBSEarlyMorning">http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/02/trucking-industry-exposed-for-%E2%80%9Cripping-off%E2%80%9D-workers-and-taxpayers-department-of-labor-vows-crackdown/>CBSEarlyMorning when industry spokesman delivered a slip of tongue that further substantiated workers are in fact misclassified.
When Toll’s U.S. workers exposed their inhumane and unsanitary working conditions, local management, acting under the direction of top headquarters executive Andrew Ethell, fired back with a range of unethical and illegal tactics to undermine their legal rights to form a union. So egregious were the actions that the regional NLRB could not settle with the company and issued a <formal">http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/files/2012/02/Toll-Consolidated-Complaint.pdf>formal complaint; Toll now faces federal trial.
The company’s horrible working conditions also prompted the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) to step in condemning Toll’s facilities in the US for undermining workers’ rights in such a severe and denigrating way and <calling">http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/7273>calling for worldwide solidarity measures to be initiated.”Intense support also comes from the <TransportWorkersUnion">http://www.theage.com.au/national/tolls-us-battle-may-go-global-20120304-1uazz.html>TransportWorkersUnion (TWU) which represents 12,000 Toll employees in Australia.
Rank-and-file and union leaders alike have traveled to Los Angeles in solidarity missions, most recently last month to serve as election monitors. Toll responded to the visit by going on a firing spree of workplace leaders.“Toll employees in the U.S. deserve a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. In Australia we have negotiated agreements for decent pay, safe working conditions and proper job security for our members at Toll. Our colleagues across the Pacific in the U.S.A. are entitled to the same. This is an issue that has strongly motivated our members across Australia, several of whom travelled to L.A. to witness the substandard conditions which drivers toil under. We welcome this historic vote to organize at Toll,” said TWU National Secretary Tony Sheldon. “We will continue to support for our brothers and sisters in the U.S. until each and every one of them have a strong contract with middle-class wages and safety protections, a proven model that has made Toll so successful.” <http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/">http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/>http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/
The results were 46 – 15 in favor of the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced. The drivers will celebrate their history-making outside of Toll Group’s truck yard at Thursday’s shift change at 4 pm PST along with allies and their counterparts at other companies who also seek to unionize; members of the media are welcome,
710 East G Street, Wilmington.
“Our victory means we are finally getting closer to the American Dream. If we can win, I know other port truck drivers across the U.S. can unite just like we did,” said Orlando Ayala, who has hauled at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for nearly 10 years. “A voice on the job means management can no longer humiliate us or force us to suffer in poverty while they profit,” added the father of 3, who questioned why Toll created such an exploitive and union-hostile environment for its workforce here, contrary to its practice overseas.
Toll Group is an iconic brand Down Under but the Melbourne-based trucking and logistics carrier has saturated that market and must expand in the U.S. to survive. The $8.8 billion giant freely negotiates with and benefits from its unionized Australian workforce, and does business with U.S. companies with strict responsible contractor policies like Under Armour, making Toll’s top athletic apparel customer the<http://www.change.org/petitions/under-armour-don-t-let-your-trucking-carrier-fire-a-mom-of-three-for-needing-to-pee> target of a current petition on the online activist website, Change.org.
The victory is further being cheered by local and international supply chain workers, organized labor, and community allies as a trailblazing private sector win in a market arena that decimated middle-class jobs when it was deregulated in 1980; port trucking, one of America’s most dangerous industries, became notorious for treating workers as disposable, is rife with health and safety violations and has remained virtually union-free since. “These first-rate truck drivers decided to form their union after being treated as second-class citizens under third-world working conditions for too long,” said Teamsters Vice President Fred Potter and Port Division Director. “Now these courageous employees have inspired other port drivers to fight for good, middle-class jobs at America’s port’s nationwide, and the Teamsters and our coalition are going to be here to help them do it.”“I am ready to fight at all costs with my co-workers, for our families, and for our union next,” said Edgar Sanchez who has been misclassified at the ports for over 16 years. The industry scam endured by Edgar and his fellow truck drivers was the focus of an <open">http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/12/an-open-letter-from-america%E2%80%99s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports/>open letter from drivers that made the rounds on the Internet during Occupy Wall Street protests last December.
The illegal practice has been a focus of a crackdown by the Department of Labor and it was further exposed on <CBSEarlyMorning">http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/02/trucking-industry-exposed-for-%E2%80%9Cripping-off%E2%80%9D-workers-and-taxpayers-department-of-labor-vows-crackdown/>CBSEarlyMorning when industry spokesman delivered a slip of tongue that further substantiated workers are in fact misclassified.
When Toll’s U.S. workers exposed their inhumane and unsanitary working conditions, local management, acting under the direction of top headquarters executive Andrew Ethell, fired back with a range of unethical and illegal tactics to undermine their legal rights to form a union. So egregious were the actions that the regional NLRB could not settle with the company and issued a <formal">http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/files/2012/02/Toll-Consolidated-Complaint.pdf>formal complaint; Toll now faces federal trial.
The company’s horrible working conditions also prompted the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) to step in condemning Toll’s facilities in the US for undermining workers’ rights in such a severe and denigrating way and <calling">http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/index.cfm/newsdetail/7273>calling for worldwide solidarity measures to be initiated.”Intense support also comes from the <TransportWorkersUnion">http://www.theage.com.au/national/tolls-us-battle-may-go-global-20120304-1uazz.html>TransportWorkersUnion (TWU) which represents 12,000 Toll employees in Australia.
Rank-and-file and union leaders alike have traveled to Los Angeles in solidarity missions, most recently last month to serve as election monitors. Toll responded to the visit by going on a firing spree of workplace leaders.“Toll employees in the U.S. deserve a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. In Australia we have negotiated agreements for decent pay, safe working conditions and proper job security for our members at Toll. Our colleagues across the Pacific in the U.S.A. are entitled to the same. This is an issue that has strongly motivated our members across Australia, several of whom travelled to L.A. to witness the substandard conditions which drivers toil under. We welcome this historic vote to organize at Toll,” said TWU National Secretary Tony Sheldon. “We will continue to support for our brothers and sisters in the U.S. until each and every one of them have a strong contract with middle-class wages and safety protections, a proven model that has made Toll so successful.” <http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/">http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/>http://grimtruthattollgroup.com/2012/04/12/americas-port-truckers-deliver-a-resounding-yes-winning-union-recognition-as-teamsters-in-historic-vote-drivers-coast-to-coast-cite-los-angeles-victory-to-clinch-collective-bargaining-rights/
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Seattle Transit Workers Action April 4, 2012
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
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 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,
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
SF Labor Opposes Profiling
San Francisco Labor Council Resolution
Adopted Feb. 27, 2012 by unanimous vote
Oppose City of San Francisco’s Cooperation with FBI and ICE Racial or
Religious Profiling and Surveillance
Whereas, the FBI had its origins during and after World War One and in the 1920s – in a massive campaign to root out, brand as “terrorist”, deport or jail union organizers, anti-war campaigners and immigrants. Portrayed in the press as heroic “gangbusters,” the FBI relentlessly pursued the objective of destabilizing the labor and civil rights movements. Many hundreds of FBI informants and agents were deployed to sabotage labor organizing and the mass campaigns of popular leaders like Marcus Garvey and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The FBI worked to undermine mass popular movements like the veterans’ 1932 Bonus Army occupation in Washington, and Dr. King’s Poor People’s Campaign for jobs and economic justice [forerunners of today’s Occupy movement]. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the FBI employed the COINTELPRO program to infiltrate and destroy popular organizations in the Black, Puerto Rican, Chicano, Native American and other communities; and
Whereas, the FBI’s domestic “counter-terrorism” efforts over the last decade have led to racial and religious profiling, harassment, surveillance and infiltration operations aimed primarily at communities of color and American Muslim communities – in their homes, places of worship and workplaces, as well as while traveling.
At the same time, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has profiled, demonized and subjected to indefinite detention immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere; and
Whereas, in September 2010 FBI agents led coordinated, pre-dawn raids or issued Grand Jury subpoenas on 23 trade union, anti-war and solidarity activists in the Midwest. In May 2011, FBI and a police SWAT team smashed into the Los Angeles home of veteran immigrant rights and solidarity activist Carlos Montes. Just as it did in the 1920s, the FBI tried to justify these fishing expeditions by invoking the mantra of “counter-terrorism.” However, many believe the FBI’s real intent was to shut down these outspoken activists and try to intimidate the labor, solidarity and anti-war movements; and
Whereas, since 9/11, the FBI has recruited more than 600 state and local law enforcement agencies to be part of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) organized and run by the FBI in 103 cities nationwide – just as ICE uses “Secure Communities” to effectively deputize local police and use them to target immigrant workers; and
Whereas, local police have been asked to utilize scarce resources for full-time “counter-terrorism” tasks with the JTTF under a secret 2007 agreement with the FBI which was only made public last year. The previously-secret agreement purports to allow police working with the FBI to ignore state and local civil rights protections, and avoid local civilian oversight and scrutiny; and
Whereas, the California State Constitution guarantees an inalienable right to privacy and bans the intrusive surveillance and intelligence practices that are currently being used by the FBI. In addition, SFPD Department General Order requires reasonable suspicion of serious criminal activity, written authorization by the Police Chief and civilian oversight for any intelligence gathering involving First Amendment activities. The City of Refuge Ordinance prohibits the City from assisting Federal immigration enforcement, and the city charter requires that all SFPD activities be subject to local civilian control and oversight; and
Whereas, after a hearing with community members, the S.F. Human Rights Commission issued a report – endorsed by the Board of Supervisors – demanding that SFPD be held to local standards and oversight. In April 2011, the Coalition for a Safe San Francisco, Asian Law Caucus and ACLU raised concerns at a Police Commission hearing after discovering that the SFPD had entered into a secret MOU agreement with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force that violated state and local law and policies. Both the Police Commission and Police Chief stated publicly that they wanted SFPD officers to follow the stronger state and local civil rights standards, but left in place the previously-secret agreement with the FBI that blocks that from occurring.
Therefore be it Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council alert its affiliated Unions to stay vigilant, to respond in the event community members are subjected to abusive FBI or ICE practices in violation of their civil and constitutional rights; and Be it further Resolved, that the Council denounce the racial or religious profiling and surveillance practices of the FBI and ICE. We condemn the continuing raids against immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere. We condemn the FBI raid on the home of Los Angeles activist Carlos Montes and the FBI raids and subpoenas on 23 anti-war, solidarity and labor activists in the Midwest, and demand restitution; and
Be it further Resolved, that the Labor Council demand that S.F. law enforcement not participate in any racial or religious profiling and surveillance conducted by the FBI, by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, by ICE or by the “Secure Communities” program; and
Be it finally Resolved, that copies be sent to the Mayor of San Francisco; members of the Board of Supervisors; the Chief of Police of San Francisco; and to the office of the FBI Special Agent for this district. ### FBI & ICE racial & religious profiling -
S.F. Labor Council Resolution adopted Feb. 27 2012.
Adopted Feb. 27, 2012 by unanimous vote
Oppose City of San Francisco’s Cooperation with FBI and ICE Racial or
Religious Profiling and Surveillance
Whereas, the FBI had its origins during and after World War One and in the 1920s – in a massive campaign to root out, brand as “terrorist”, deport or jail union organizers, anti-war campaigners and immigrants. Portrayed in the press as heroic “gangbusters,” the FBI relentlessly pursued the objective of destabilizing the labor and civil rights movements. Many hundreds of FBI informants and agents were deployed to sabotage labor organizing and the mass campaigns of popular leaders like Marcus Garvey and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The FBI worked to undermine mass popular movements like the veterans’ 1932 Bonus Army occupation in Washington, and Dr. King’s Poor People’s Campaign for jobs and economic justice [forerunners of today’s Occupy movement]. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the FBI employed the COINTELPRO program to infiltrate and destroy popular organizations in the Black, Puerto Rican, Chicano, Native American and other communities; and
Whereas, the FBI’s domestic “counter-terrorism” efforts over the last decade have led to racial and religious profiling, harassment, surveillance and infiltration operations aimed primarily at communities of color and American Muslim communities – in their homes, places of worship and workplaces, as well as while traveling.
At the same time, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has profiled, demonized and subjected to indefinite detention immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere; and
Whereas, in September 2010 FBI agents led coordinated, pre-dawn raids or issued Grand Jury subpoenas on 23 trade union, anti-war and solidarity activists in the Midwest. In May 2011, FBI and a police SWAT team smashed into the Los Angeles home of veteran immigrant rights and solidarity activist Carlos Montes. Just as it did in the 1920s, the FBI tried to justify these fishing expeditions by invoking the mantra of “counter-terrorism.” However, many believe the FBI’s real intent was to shut down these outspoken activists and try to intimidate the labor, solidarity and anti-war movements; and
Whereas, since 9/11, the FBI has recruited more than 600 state and local law enforcement agencies to be part of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) organized and run by the FBI in 103 cities nationwide – just as ICE uses “Secure Communities” to effectively deputize local police and use them to target immigrant workers; and
Whereas, local police have been asked to utilize scarce resources for full-time “counter-terrorism” tasks with the JTTF under a secret 2007 agreement with the FBI which was only made public last year. The previously-secret agreement purports to allow police working with the FBI to ignore state and local civil rights protections, and avoid local civilian oversight and scrutiny; and
Whereas, the California State Constitution guarantees an inalienable right to privacy and bans the intrusive surveillance and intelligence practices that are currently being used by the FBI. In addition, SFPD Department General Order requires reasonable suspicion of serious criminal activity, written authorization by the Police Chief and civilian oversight for any intelligence gathering involving First Amendment activities. The City of Refuge Ordinance prohibits the City from assisting Federal immigration enforcement, and the city charter requires that all SFPD activities be subject to local civilian control and oversight; and
Whereas, after a hearing with community members, the S.F. Human Rights Commission issued a report – endorsed by the Board of Supervisors – demanding that SFPD be held to local standards and oversight. In April 2011, the Coalition for a Safe San Francisco, Asian Law Caucus and ACLU raised concerns at a Police Commission hearing after discovering that the SFPD had entered into a secret MOU agreement with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force that violated state and local law and policies. Both the Police Commission and Police Chief stated publicly that they wanted SFPD officers to follow the stronger state and local civil rights standards, but left in place the previously-secret agreement with the FBI that blocks that from occurring.
Therefore be it Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council alert its affiliated Unions to stay vigilant, to respond in the event community members are subjected to abusive FBI or ICE practices in violation of their civil and constitutional rights; and Be it further Resolved, that the Council denounce the racial or religious profiling and surveillance practices of the FBI and ICE. We condemn the continuing raids against immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere. We condemn the FBI raid on the home of Los Angeles activist Carlos Montes and the FBI raids and subpoenas on 23 anti-war, solidarity and labor activists in the Midwest, and demand restitution; and
Be it further Resolved, that the Labor Council demand that S.F. law enforcement not participate in any racial or religious profiling and surveillance conducted by the FBI, by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, by ICE or by the “Secure Communities” program; and
Be it finally Resolved, that copies be sent to the Mayor of San Francisco; members of the Board of Supervisors; the Chief of Police of San Francisco; and to the office of the FBI Special Agent for this district. ### FBI & ICE racial & religious profiling -
S.F. Labor Council Resolution adopted Feb. 27 2012.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
War on Postal Workers
Cost-cutting plan targets hundreds of US Mail processing facilities
The U.S. Postal Service could close or merge with nearby locations in the next year as part of a three-year, $15 billion cost-cutting plan. The consolidations would affect four processing centers in Maryland: Cumberland, Easton, Gaithersburg and Waldorf. The Virginia sites are Lynchburg, Norfolk and Roanoke. 1Gallery
The cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service has announced plans to eliminate dozens of processing centers.If the plan is enacted, parts of some states would have their mail sorted in another state. That possibility rattled Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, both Maryland Democrats, who blasted plans to move some sorting responsibilities from Eastern Maryland to Delaware.“There is absolutely no statistical or empirical data to justify consideration of this idea,” they said in a letter sent Thursday to Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe.
But in an interview, Donahoe said his advisers spent the past few months studying the feasibility of shuttering as many as 264 sites by reviewing network delivery models. The study determined that six sites would require further review, 35 would remain open and the affected sites would start closing or merging at some point after a moratorium on closures ends in mid-May. Donahoe said the consolidation plans remain “very fluid.” “None of this is set in stone,” he said. Making the announcement this week, he said, would permit affected workers to begin weighing their options.“Some people will retire, some may become letter carriers, some maintenance employees may be vehicle mechanics, depending on how things work,” he said. “We are still awaiting some decisions from a legislative perspective that may lead to some changes. But if we don’t get legislation, we would have to start closing locations.”
Legislative action is expected next month when the Senate begins consideration of a bipartisan reform plan that would permit the Postal Service to close thousands of post offices, end Saturday mail delivery and recoup billions of dollars paid into federal and postal retirement accounts.Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who led a push to delay any further postal consolidations until May, called the new plans “deeply flawed” because closing processing centers would further slow mail delivery.
“Slowing down mail delivery service will result in less business and less revenue,” Sanders said. The Postal Service hopes to eventually operate a delivery network with fewer than 200 processing facilities, and closing the 223 sites could mean the loss of as many as 35,000 mail processing jobs, mostly through attrition, as part of a broader goal of trimming 150,000 positions by next year. The cutbacks also mean the Postal Service would no longer be able to guarantee overnight delivery of some first-class mail....(edited)
Cliff Guffey, president of the American Postal Workers Union, encouraged his members to continue pressing lawmakers and customers to voice their opposition to the changes.“We face an uphill battle, so it is crucial that union members continue to make their voices heard,” Guffey said
ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
The U.S. Postal Service could close or merge with nearby locations in the next year as part of a three-year, $15 billion cost-cutting plan. The consolidations would affect four processing centers in Maryland: Cumberland, Easton, Gaithersburg and Waldorf. The Virginia sites are Lynchburg, Norfolk and Roanoke. 1Gallery
The cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service has announced plans to eliminate dozens of processing centers.If the plan is enacted, parts of some states would have their mail sorted in another state. That possibility rattled Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, both Maryland Democrats, who blasted plans to move some sorting responsibilities from Eastern Maryland to Delaware.“There is absolutely no statistical or empirical data to justify consideration of this idea,” they said in a letter sent Thursday to Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe.
But in an interview, Donahoe said his advisers spent the past few months studying the feasibility of shuttering as many as 264 sites by reviewing network delivery models. The study determined that six sites would require further review, 35 would remain open and the affected sites would start closing or merging at some point after a moratorium on closures ends in mid-May. Donahoe said the consolidation plans remain “very fluid.” “None of this is set in stone,” he said. Making the announcement this week, he said, would permit affected workers to begin weighing their options.“Some people will retire, some may become letter carriers, some maintenance employees may be vehicle mechanics, depending on how things work,” he said. “We are still awaiting some decisions from a legislative perspective that may lead to some changes. But if we don’t get legislation, we would have to start closing locations.”
Legislative action is expected next month when the Senate begins consideration of a bipartisan reform plan that would permit the Postal Service to close thousands of post offices, end Saturday mail delivery and recoup billions of dollars paid into federal and postal retirement accounts.Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who led a push to delay any further postal consolidations until May, called the new plans “deeply flawed” because closing processing centers would further slow mail delivery.
“Slowing down mail delivery service will result in less business and less revenue,” Sanders said. The Postal Service hopes to eventually operate a delivery network with fewer than 200 processing facilities, and closing the 223 sites could mean the loss of as many as 35,000 mail processing jobs, mostly through attrition, as part of a broader goal of trimming 150,000 positions by next year. The cutbacks also mean the Postal Service would no longer be able to guarantee overnight delivery of some first-class mail....(edited)
Cliff Guffey, president of the American Postal Workers Union, encouraged his members to continue pressing lawmakers and customers to voice their opposition to the changes.“We face an uphill battle, so it is crucial that union members continue to make their voices heard,” Guffey said
ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
Friday, February 10, 2012
12 Major Faults With Mortgage Settlement
The Top Twelve Reasons Why You
Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement
by Eve Smith "Naked Capitalism"
1. We’ve now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It’s $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It’s a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law.
2. That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. The mortgage principal writedowns are guaranteed to come almost entirely from securitized loans, which means from investors, which in turn means taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie, pension funds, insurers, and 401 (k)s. Refis of performing loans also reduce income to those very same investors.
3. That $5 billion divided among the big banks wouldn’t even represent a significant quarterly hit. Freddie and Fannie putbacks to the major banks have been running at that level each quarter.
4. That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.
5. The enforcement is a joke. The first layer of supervision is the banks reporting on themselves. The framework is similar to that of the OCC consent decrees implemented last year, which Adam Levitin and yours truly, among others, decried as regulatory theater.
6. The past history of servicer consent decrees shows the servicers all fail to comply. Why? Servicer records and systems are terrible in the best of times, and their systems and fee structures aren’t set up to handle much in the way of delinquencies. As Tom Adams has pointed out in earlier posts, servicer behavior is predictable when their portfolios are hit with a high level of delinquencies and defaults: they cheat in all sorts of ways to reduce their losses.
7. The cave-in Nevada and Arizona on the Countrywide settlement suit is a special gift for Bank of America, who is by far the worst offender in the chain of title disaster (since, according to sworn testimony of its own employee in Kemp v. Countrywide, Countrywide failed to comply with trust delivery requirements). This move proves that failing to comply with a consent degree has no consequences but will merely be rolled into a new consent degree which will also fail to be enforced. These cases also alleged HAMP violations as consumer fraud violations and could have gotten costly and emboldened other states to file similar suits not just against Countrywide but other servicers, so it was useful to the other banks as well.
8. If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating. It’s a bad idea to settle obvious, widespread wrongdoing on the cheap. You use the stuff that is easy to prove to gather information and secure cooperation on the stuff that is harder to prove. In Missouri and Nevada, the robosigning investigation led to criminal charges against agents of the servicers. But even though these companies were acting at the express direction and approval of the services, no individuals or entities higher up the food chain will face any sort of meaningful charges.
9. There is plenty of evidence of widespread abuses that appear not to be on the attorney generals’ or media’s radar, such as servicer driven foreclosures and looting of investors’ funds via impermissible and inflated charges. While no serious probe was undertaken, even the limited or peripheral investigations show massive failures (60% of documents had errors in AGs/Fed’s pathetically small sample). Similarly, the US Trustee’s office found widespread evidence of significant servicer errors in bankruptcy-related filings, such as inflated and bogus fees, and even substantial, completely made up charges. Yet the services and banks will suffer no real consequences for these abuses.
10. A deal on robo-siginging serves to cover up the much deeper chain of title problem. And don’t get too excited about the New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware MERS suits. They put pressure on banks to clean up this monstrous mess only if the AGs go through to trial and get tough penalties. The banks will want to settle their way out of that too. And even if these cases do go to trial and produce significant victories for the AGs, they still do not address the problem of failures to transfer notes correctly.
11. Don’t bet on a deus ex machina in terms of the new Federal Foreclosure Task Force to improve this picture much. If you think Schneiderman, as a co-chairman who already has a full time day job in New York, is going to outfox a bunch of DC insiders who are part of the problem, I have a bridge I’d like to sell to you.
12. We’ll now have to listen to banks and their sycophant defenders declaring victory despite being wrong on the law and the facts. They will proceed to marginalize and write off criticisms of the servicing practices that hurt homeowners and investors and are devastating communities. But the problems will fester and the housing market will continue to suffer. Investors in mortgage-backed securities, who know that services have been screwing them for years, will be hung out to dry and will likely never return to a private MBS market, since the problems won’t ever be fixed. This settlement has not only revealed the residential mortgage market to be too big to fail, but puts it on long term, perhaps permanent, government life support.
As we’ve said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn’t you and me. It’s bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.
Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement
by Eve Smith "Naked Capitalism"
1. We’ve now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It’s $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It’s a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law.
2. That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. The mortgage principal writedowns are guaranteed to come almost entirely from securitized loans, which means from investors, which in turn means taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie, pension funds, insurers, and 401 (k)s. Refis of performing loans also reduce income to those very same investors.
3. That $5 billion divided among the big banks wouldn’t even represent a significant quarterly hit. Freddie and Fannie putbacks to the major banks have been running at that level each quarter.
4. That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.
5. The enforcement is a joke. The first layer of supervision is the banks reporting on themselves. The framework is similar to that of the OCC consent decrees implemented last year, which Adam Levitin and yours truly, among others, decried as regulatory theater.
6. The past history of servicer consent decrees shows the servicers all fail to comply. Why? Servicer records and systems are terrible in the best of times, and their systems and fee structures aren’t set up to handle much in the way of delinquencies. As Tom Adams has pointed out in earlier posts, servicer behavior is predictable when their portfolios are hit with a high level of delinquencies and defaults: they cheat in all sorts of ways to reduce their losses.
7. The cave-in Nevada and Arizona on the Countrywide settlement suit is a special gift for Bank of America, who is by far the worst offender in the chain of title disaster (since, according to sworn testimony of its own employee in Kemp v. Countrywide, Countrywide failed to comply with trust delivery requirements). This move proves that failing to comply with a consent degree has no consequences but will merely be rolled into a new consent degree which will also fail to be enforced. These cases also alleged HAMP violations as consumer fraud violations and could have gotten costly and emboldened other states to file similar suits not just against Countrywide but other servicers, so it was useful to the other banks as well.
8. If the new Federal task force were intended to be serious, this deal would have not have been settled. You never settle before investigating. It’s a bad idea to settle obvious, widespread wrongdoing on the cheap. You use the stuff that is easy to prove to gather information and secure cooperation on the stuff that is harder to prove. In Missouri and Nevada, the robosigning investigation led to criminal charges against agents of the servicers. But even though these companies were acting at the express direction and approval of the services, no individuals or entities higher up the food chain will face any sort of meaningful charges.
9. There is plenty of evidence of widespread abuses that appear not to be on the attorney generals’ or media’s radar, such as servicer driven foreclosures and looting of investors’ funds via impermissible and inflated charges. While no serious probe was undertaken, even the limited or peripheral investigations show massive failures (60% of documents had errors in AGs/Fed’s pathetically small sample). Similarly, the US Trustee’s office found widespread evidence of significant servicer errors in bankruptcy-related filings, such as inflated and bogus fees, and even substantial, completely made up charges. Yet the services and banks will suffer no real consequences for these abuses.
10. A deal on robo-siginging serves to cover up the much deeper chain of title problem. And don’t get too excited about the New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware MERS suits. They put pressure on banks to clean up this monstrous mess only if the AGs go through to trial and get tough penalties. The banks will want to settle their way out of that too. And even if these cases do go to trial and produce significant victories for the AGs, they still do not address the problem of failures to transfer notes correctly.
11. Don’t bet on a deus ex machina in terms of the new Federal Foreclosure Task Force to improve this picture much. If you think Schneiderman, as a co-chairman who already has a full time day job in New York, is going to outfox a bunch of DC insiders who are part of the problem, I have a bridge I’d like to sell to you.
12. We’ll now have to listen to banks and their sycophant defenders declaring victory despite being wrong on the law and the facts. They will proceed to marginalize and write off criticisms of the servicing practices that hurt homeowners and investors and are devastating communities. But the problems will fester and the housing market will continue to suffer. Investors in mortgage-backed securities, who know that services have been screwing them for years, will be hung out to dry and will likely never return to a private MBS market, since the problems won’t ever be fixed. This settlement has not only revealed the residential mortgage market to be too big to fail, but puts it on long term, perhaps permanent, government life support.
As we’ve said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn’t you and me. It’s bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Millionaires Tax in CA
AFSCME
Others Endorse Millionaire's Tax http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9856#more
SACRAMENTO, CA – Restoring California, the coalition of educators and community leaders sponsoring the Millionaires Tax initiative for the November ballot, announced it has attracted new support from organizations representing clergy and laity, 10,000 community college faculty and 25,000 public workers.
The campaign also announced that the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) has contributed $500,000 towards the signature-gathering campaign. The veteran firm of Masterton & Wright has been hired to manage the signature-gathering effort.
“We are excited that our initiative to provide permanent funding for public education and vital services has won the support of AFSCME District Council 57, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC), and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE),” said Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and a spokesperson for the coalition.
Rev. Dr. Art Cribbs, executive director of CLUE California, said his organization endorsed the Millionaires Tax because, “We are seeking a more equitable means to raise revenue in California to meet the needs of our children in public schools, elders on fixed incomes, and disabled residents who require vital services.
The Millionaires Tax offers the brightest prospect of getting voters' approval and making our state's economy more stable. It is not too much to ask the most prosperous citizens in California to pay a few pennies on each dollar over $1 million earnings. It is fair and long over due.”
“California schools need new revenue and the Millionaires Tax is the initiative that would provide permanent revenue without parents and students digging deeper into their pockets,” said FACCC Vice President Dean Murakami, a Sacramento-area community college professor.
AFSCME District Council 57 represents workers in schools and community colleges, transit agencies, public works and services, clinics and hospitals, and water and wastewater facilities throughout Northern California and the Central Valley. The Council also represents the health and social service professionals in corrections facilities across California.
Restoring California is a broad coalition of educators, unions and community groups looking to restore critical funding to schools and universities, essential services for children, seniors, and public safety, as well as start rebuilding the state’s crumbling roads and bridges. It asks the wealthiest Californians — people who earn over a million dollars per year — to pay their fair share to help rebuild the state. For more info, www.millionairestaxca.com.
Others Endorse Millionaire's Tax http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9856#more
SACRAMENTO, CA – Restoring California, the coalition of educators and community leaders sponsoring the Millionaires Tax initiative for the November ballot, announced it has attracted new support from organizations representing clergy and laity, 10,000 community college faculty and 25,000 public workers.
The campaign also announced that the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) has contributed $500,000 towards the signature-gathering campaign. The veteran firm of Masterton & Wright has been hired to manage the signature-gathering effort.
“We are excited that our initiative to provide permanent funding for public education and vital services has won the support of AFSCME District Council 57, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC), and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE),” said Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and a spokesperson for the coalition.
Rev. Dr. Art Cribbs, executive director of CLUE California, said his organization endorsed the Millionaires Tax because, “We are seeking a more equitable means to raise revenue in California to meet the needs of our children in public schools, elders on fixed incomes, and disabled residents who require vital services.
The Millionaires Tax offers the brightest prospect of getting voters' approval and making our state's economy more stable. It is not too much to ask the most prosperous citizens in California to pay a few pennies on each dollar over $1 million earnings. It is fair and long over due.”
“California schools need new revenue and the Millionaires Tax is the initiative that would provide permanent revenue without parents and students digging deeper into their pockets,” said FACCC Vice President Dean Murakami, a Sacramento-area community college professor.
AFSCME District Council 57 represents workers in schools and community colleges, transit agencies, public works and services, clinics and hospitals, and water and wastewater facilities throughout Northern California and the Central Valley. The Council also represents the health and social service professionals in corrections facilities across California.
Restoring California is a broad coalition of educators, unions and community groups looking to restore critical funding to schools and universities, essential services for children, seniors, and public safety, as well as start rebuilding the state’s crumbling roads and bridges. It asks the wealthiest Californians — people who earn over a million dollars per year — to pay their fair share to help rebuild the state. For more info, www.millionairestaxca.com.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
AFL-CIO Chief Rejects Jobs Council
AFL-CIO chief Trumka rejects White House jobs council report
By Kevin Bogardus - 01/18/12 01:42 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/204861-afl-cio-chief-dissents-from-white-house-jobs-council-report
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Wednesday offered a stinging rebuke of the the White House jobs Council’s latest report. Trumka, one of two union leaders on the council, said the body is too narrow to provide recommendations to President Obama that are balanced between the interests of business and other groups such as labor.
Trumka specifically took issue with the report’s calls for lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations, saying they would not lead to more jobs.“Overall, I disagree that reforming our regulatory system and reducing the statutory corporate tax rate are crucial elements of ‘competitiveness’ for the United States going forward, nor does empirical evidence support the claim that significant net new job creation would result from such ‘reforms,’” he said.
The 22-member council consists mainly of chief executives from major companies, including Intel, Procter & Gamble and Southwest Airlines. Trumka and Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and chairman of the Change to Win Federation, are the council’s only two labor members.
Trumka adopted the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street movement in his statement.“The answer lies in the view that we share with so many of our fellow Americans: that our country has become dominated by the interests of the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the remaining 99 percent,” Trumka said.
“It turns out that a country run in the interests of the wealthiest 1 percent systematically under-invests in public goods; systematically silences, disempowers, and under-invests in its workers; and in the end is less competitive and creates fewer jobs than a country that focuses on the interests of the 99 percent.”
By Kevin Bogardus - 01/18/12 01:42 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/204861-afl-cio-chief-dissents-from-white-house-jobs-council-report
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Wednesday offered a stinging rebuke of the the White House jobs Council’s latest report. Trumka, one of two union leaders on the council, said the body is too narrow to provide recommendations to President Obama that are balanced between the interests of business and other groups such as labor.
Trumka specifically took issue with the report’s calls for lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations, saying they would not lead to more jobs.“Overall, I disagree that reforming our regulatory system and reducing the statutory corporate tax rate are crucial elements of ‘competitiveness’ for the United States going forward, nor does empirical evidence support the claim that significant net new job creation would result from such ‘reforms,’” he said.
The 22-member council consists mainly of chief executives from major companies, including Intel, Procter & Gamble and Southwest Airlines. Trumka and Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and chairman of the Change to Win Federation, are the council’s only two labor members.
Trumka adopted the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street movement in his statement.“The answer lies in the view that we share with so many of our fellow Americans: that our country has become dominated by the interests of the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the remaining 99 percent,” Trumka said.
“It turns out that a country run in the interests of the wealthiest 1 percent systematically under-invests in public goods; systematically silences, disempowers, and under-invests in its workers; and in the end is less competitive and creates fewer jobs than a country that focuses on the interests of the 99 percent.”
Thursday, December 15, 2011
CO-OPS SPREADING in USA
Worker-Owners of America, Unite!
THE Occupy Wall Street protests have come and mostly gone, and whether they continue to have an impact or not, they have brought an astounding fact to the public’s attention: a mere 1 percent of Americans own just under half of the country’s financial assets and other investments. America, it would seem, is less equitable than ever, thanks to our no-holds-barred capitalist system.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the Populist and Progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
By GAR ALPEROVITZ
Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland and a founder of the Democracy Collaborative, is the author of “America Beyond Capitalism.”
THE Occupy Wall Street protests have come and mostly gone, and whether they continue to have an impact or not, they have brought an astounding fact to the public’s attention: a mere 1 percent of Americans own just under half of the country’s financial assets and other investments. America, it would seem, is less equitable than ever, thanks to our no-holds-barred capitalist system.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the Populist and Progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
By GAR ALPEROVITZ
Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland and a founder of the Democracy Collaborative, is the author of “America Beyond Capitalism.”
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Oakland OWS Port Action Dec. 12th, 2011
Occupy Members Swarm Oakland Port
"I am getting tired of seeing my neighbors getting hurt and I am fighting the good fight." Says UPWA Leader Charles Smith
(12-12) 11:58 PST OAKLAND -- Almost half the berths at the Port of Oakland have temporarily ceased operations today after hundreds of protesters spent the morning blocking intersections in the port.
Roughly 150 longshoremen on the dayshift were sent home with little to no pay after they were either unable to get to work or the big rigs used to haul containers couldn't reach the berths, said Craig Merrilees, spokesman for the International Longshore Worker's Union (ILWU). Fifty longshoremen are still working today, Merrilees said.
The employees were sent home after the companies that own the different berths in the port decided to shut down and send workers home. "There have been disruptions, there have been distractions, but we are not shut down," said Isaac Kos-Read, spokesman for the port.
The next shift of workers is expected to start later this afternoon and demonstrators have pledged to again disrupt operations.
"We have a lot to be proud of today," said Clarence Thomas, a Longshoreman after getting the text alert from protest organizers saying they had successfully closed the port and were pulling out. Thomas said he supported the movement.
"We're very very happy," added Judy Greenspan, 59, a public school teacher in Richmond. "Despite all the premonitions of violence, this has been peaceful throughout. I hope we can redouble our efforts again this afternoon."
The group of protesters succeeded in stopping a line of big-rigs from entering the Port of Oakland for nearly five hours this morning during their march to shut down the busy cargo terminal.
Organizers have pledged to march to the port and shut down the terminal, one of the busiest on the West Coast. Some unions, including the one representing Oakland teachers, are supporting the day-long strike while others, like the Longshoremen's union, say shutting down the port will harm hard-working stevedores and truck drivers.
Carrying signs saying "Shutdown Wall St. on the Waterfront" about 200 protesters marched the three blocks from the West Oakland BART Station to the port entrances before sunrise today.
The group marchers were met by a line of police officers in riot gear near the intersection of Seventh Street and Middle Harbor Road. Protesters began marching in a circle, preventing trucks from getting through. At least one demonstrator set up a tent in the intersection.
Around 8:45 a.m. two lines of 50 police officers in riot gear marched toward the group and formed a line on one side of the group for 15 minutes. About 25 officers then walked away, seeming to suggest the standoff would continue into the late morning.
Before dawn, one trucker, clearly frustrated, blew his air horn and tried to drive through the crowd.
Some Longshoremen scheduled to begin work at 8 a.m. decided they didn't want to cross a picket line and went home. Others, though, said they needed the money.
"I am here because I am a union member. Unions have been decimated," Charles Smith, 68, a retired wastewater treatment plant worker said as he trudged to the port. "I am getting tired of seeing my neighbors getting hurt and I am fighting the good fight."
Demonstrators are trying to close ports up and down the West Coast. "It's necessary. It is a way to strike back, to show our numbers and show what the people can do," said William Lovell, 44, who said he participated in the now-dismantled Occupy SF camp. "We are politely breaking the rules as gently as we can."
At a news conference this morning, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said while she agrees with the concerns of the Occupy movement in general, she did not want to see the port closed.
"We're working hard today to keep the port operations going with minimal disruption," Quan said. "We urge the demonstrators who are coming to the port to respect the rights of the 99 percent who are trying to work today and to keep their protest peaceful. So far, it seems to be going well and operations are minimally disrupted. We hope that this will continue for the day."
Dan Siegel, Quan's legal adviser who quit when she supported a raid of the downtown Occupy camp, spent the morning at the protest. He said the mood was almost "festive."
"It started out kind of tense, there were a lot of threats from police and politicians," he said. "I think ultimately we had large enough numbers (that) police decided to pull back and allow us to picket."
Chronicle staff writers Will Kane and Henry K. Lee contributed to this report.
Edited and emphasis by Bloggger
"I am getting tired of seeing my neighbors getting hurt and I am fighting the good fight." Says UPWA Leader Charles Smith
(12-12) 11:58 PST OAKLAND -- Almost half the berths at the Port of Oakland have temporarily ceased operations today after hundreds of protesters spent the morning blocking intersections in the port.
Roughly 150 longshoremen on the dayshift were sent home with little to no pay after they were either unable to get to work or the big rigs used to haul containers couldn't reach the berths, said Craig Merrilees, spokesman for the International Longshore Worker's Union (ILWU). Fifty longshoremen are still working today, Merrilees said.
The employees were sent home after the companies that own the different berths in the port decided to shut down and send workers home. "There have been disruptions, there have been distractions, but we are not shut down," said Isaac Kos-Read, spokesman for the port.
The next shift of workers is expected to start later this afternoon and demonstrators have pledged to again disrupt operations.
"We have a lot to be proud of today," said Clarence Thomas, a Longshoreman after getting the text alert from protest organizers saying they had successfully closed the port and were pulling out. Thomas said he supported the movement.
"We're very very happy," added Judy Greenspan, 59, a public school teacher in Richmond. "Despite all the premonitions of violence, this has been peaceful throughout. I hope we can redouble our efforts again this afternoon."
The group of protesters succeeded in stopping a line of big-rigs from entering the Port of Oakland for nearly five hours this morning during their march to shut down the busy cargo terminal.
Organizers have pledged to march to the port and shut down the terminal, one of the busiest on the West Coast. Some unions, including the one representing Oakland teachers, are supporting the day-long strike while others, like the Longshoremen's union, say shutting down the port will harm hard-working stevedores and truck drivers.
Carrying signs saying "Shutdown Wall St. on the Waterfront" about 200 protesters marched the three blocks from the West Oakland BART Station to the port entrances before sunrise today.
The group marchers were met by a line of police officers in riot gear near the intersection of Seventh Street and Middle Harbor Road. Protesters began marching in a circle, preventing trucks from getting through. At least one demonstrator set up a tent in the intersection.
Around 8:45 a.m. two lines of 50 police officers in riot gear marched toward the group and formed a line on one side of the group for 15 minutes. About 25 officers then walked away, seeming to suggest the standoff would continue into the late morning.
Before dawn, one trucker, clearly frustrated, blew his air horn and tried to drive through the crowd.
Some Longshoremen scheduled to begin work at 8 a.m. decided they didn't want to cross a picket line and went home. Others, though, said they needed the money.
"I am here because I am a union member. Unions have been decimated," Charles Smith, 68, a retired wastewater treatment plant worker said as he trudged to the port. "I am getting tired of seeing my neighbors getting hurt and I am fighting the good fight."
Demonstrators are trying to close ports up and down the West Coast. "It's necessary. It is a way to strike back, to show our numbers and show what the people can do," said William Lovell, 44, who said he participated in the now-dismantled Occupy SF camp. "We are politely breaking the rules as gently as we can."
At a news conference this morning, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said while she agrees with the concerns of the Occupy movement in general, she did not want to see the port closed.
"We're working hard today to keep the port operations going with minimal disruption," Quan said. "We urge the demonstrators who are coming to the port to respect the rights of the 99 percent who are trying to work today and to keep their protest peaceful. So far, it seems to be going well and operations are minimally disrupted. We hope that this will continue for the day."
Dan Siegel, Quan's legal adviser who quit when she supported a raid of the downtown Occupy camp, spent the morning at the protest. He said the mood was almost "festive."
"It started out kind of tense, there were a lot of threats from police and politicians," he said. "I think ultimately we had large enough numbers (that) police decided to pull back and allow us to picket."
Chronicle staff writers Will Kane and Henry K. Lee contributed to this report.
Edited and emphasis by Bloggger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)