thehuffingtonpost--2019-03-15--Bernie Sanders Staff Forms First-Ever Union For Presidential Campaign Workers

Bernie Sanders’ Staff Forms First-Ever Union For Presidential Campaign Workers

ASSOCIATED PRESS/Meg Kinnard Sen. Bernie Sanders addresses a rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, on Thursday. Alumni of his 2016 bid launched the movement to unionize Democratic campaigns.  Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has become the first major party presidential campaign to unionize. The campaign announced Friday that it had voluntarily recognized a bargaining unit organized with the United Food and Commercial Workers.  The news comes amid a budding movement to organize campaign workers in the notoriously tough working environment that is the campaign trail. The 2018 midterm elections saw the first congressional campaigns and party committees to have unionized workforces.  The group leading the charge, the Campaign Workers Guild, has organized 24 political campaigns since its 2018 launch ― although it was not the guild that succeeded in unionizing Sanders’ campaign.  “Sanders is the most pro-union candidate in the field, he’ll be the most pro-union president in the White House, and we’re honored that his campaign will be the first [major presidential campaign] to have a unionized workforce,” said Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager.  Democrat Julián Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development who is also running for president, promised earlier this year that he would recognize a bargaining unit if his staffers organized. Other Democratic contenders have been mostly silent, with none but Castro saying they would support a union when McClatchy polled candidates and likely candidates in late January.  Veterans of Sanders’ first presidential run in 2016 formed the Campaign Workers Guild in October 2017 with the goal of improving working conditions and forcing progressive candidates to practice the pro-union rhetoric that they preach. The guild ratified its first contract with then-Wisconsin congressional candidate Randy Bryce, who was himself a union ironworker, in February 2018.  Sanders’ campaign staffers will become members of the UFCW’s Local 400, which represents 35,000 workers in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and several other states. The union has traditionally represented food and retail workers, but also represents employees of Solidarity Strategies, the consulting firm of Chuck Rocha, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2020 and 2016 presidential bids.  In a joint statement with the UFCW, Local 400 said it had reached a neutrality agreement with the Sanders campaign on Feb. 26, ensuring that campaign management would not attempt to influence the outcome of the organizing effort and would immediately recognize the union when it had collected a majority of signed cards from employees selecting the union as their bargaining representative.  “We are so proud to join Local 400 alongside our union brothers and sisters in the struggle for security, justice and dignity,” said Christian Bowe, a digital communications staffer on Sanders’ campaign.  The leadership of the Campaign Workers Guild also released a statement on Friday expressing objections to the campaign management’s handling of the unionization process. The guild accused the campaign of ignoring requests for a union neutrality agreement with it over the course of nearly two months.  “While we wish our union had been given an opportunity to represent these workers, we fully support Bernie 2020 workers and are excited that campaign workers have succeeded in changing the status quo,” the guild said in the statement.  Campaign unions acknowledge that elections require workers to put in long hours. Their contracts have typically not sought to force candidates to abide by a normal 40-hour workweek, but instead secured higher pay, health care and retirement benefits, paid sick leave, paid personal time off and due process when a worker is fired.  The hierarchical leadership and pressure of campaigns can also breed impunity for sexual harassment perpetrated by managers or other members of campaign staff against their fellow employees. Several women who worked on Sanders’ 2016 campaign subsequently complained that the campaign did not adequately respond to the harassment they experienced on the campaign trail.  In an effort to improve, Sanders implemented mandatory harassment training for all campaign workers in his 2018 Senate re-election bid and hired a law firm to serve as an independent body where people can bring their harassment complaints without fear of retaliation.


thehuffingtonpost--2019-07-23--Bernie Sanders Reaches New Deal With Campaign Workers Union

The accord follows a Washington Post story on Thursday detailing the complaints of field organizers that workweeks of 60 hours or more effectively kept their pay below $15 an hour.  The article prompted allegations of hypocrisy against Sanders, a prominent champion of a federal $15 minimum wage who was the first presidential candidate to recognize a labor union for campaign workers. The report also sparked frustration within the campaign over the source of a leak to the Post about the labor dispute that was not sanctioned by the union or its members.  Members of the campaign staff union, which is a part of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400, have voted to accept an offer to raise field organizer pay from $36,000 to $42,000 a year. Language in the amended collective bargaining agreement would specify that the typical workweek is six days, rather than the five days it had previously specified.  And in a bid to address a key sticking point, the campaign will cover the full cost of health care for employees making up to $42,000. It had previously covered 85% of the cost for employees making more than $36,000 a year.  “Both the campaign staff and management have engaged in this process in good faith and to achieve a mutually agreed upon outcome,” Jonathan Williams, a spokesman for UFCW Local 400, said in a statement. “This is what democracy in the workplace looks like.”  “We’re proud to have successfully negotiated with the union in good faith to raise the pay of field organizers, while continuing to ensure our campaign staffers are being paid a living wage,” Shakir said in a statement.  The Sanders campaign union had ratified its first contract in early May, before it hired any of the field organizers that form the core of its outreach network in the four early primary and caucus states.  When field organizers voiced their discontent with the terms of the contract, Shakir offered in mid-May to raise pay to $42,000, but the union voted it down because of concerns that it would expose staff to additional health care costs. The new agreement addresses that issue by preserving the campaign’s commitment to pay for the full cost of those employees’ health plans.  The agreement demonstrates how close management and the union were to a deal prior to the Post story, according to internal critics of the leak who spoke to HuffPost. It adds weight to arguments that days of negative publicity that often mistakenly implied that Sanders had a worse labor record than his presidential rivals could have been avoided.  But other staff members remained critical of the way campaign management, including Shakir, handled negotiations. Even his mid-May counteroffer was made weeks before the vast majority of field organizers came on board, according to a field organizer sympathetic to the leak.  “It’s a good deal for wages,” the organizer said. “It’s a first step towards fixing the many problems field organizers and [regional field directors] have with the union contract, which was ratified and negotiated prior to their hiring.”


thehuffingtonpost--2019-08-26--A Liberal Sweatshop Is Quashing Its Workers Efforts To Unionize

A 'Liberal Sweatshop' Is Quashing Its Workers' Efforts To Unionize

The clash is the latest to pit young progressive activists against the legacy organizations that count on them for an endless supply of low-cost organizing and fundraising labor. Last year, workers for Grassroots Campaigns Inc. ― which has raised money for the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and Amnesty International ― accused Grassroots Campaigns of illegal attempts to snuff out their nascent union efforts. Workers at the Fund for the Public Interest have helped raise millions of dollars for liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Human Rights Campaign, that must do political battle with better-financed corporate lobbies. Over the years, they have also raised constant complaints about their working conditions, accusing the fund of unfair and unpredictable pay, unreasonable quotas, and punishing schedules.  At a moment when groups like the League of Conservation Voters and NextGen America are unionizing, and the idea of a Green New Deal is inspiring new alliances between the labor and environmental movements, the would-be union organizers see their effort as a critical test of progressive values ― and the fund’s pushback as exactly the wrong message.  The Fund for the Public Interest was founded in 1982 to raise donations for Public Interest Research Groups or PIRG, the consumer advocacy network established by erstwhile presidential candidate Ralph Nader. In 2001, the fund launched the canvassing program that is now ubiquitous in American cities and suburbs: clipboard-brandishing college students and other young adults who ask passersby if they have a minute for the environment.  The fund now operates a dozen permanent offices. Each summer, it opens another 20 temporary offices with hundreds of college students on their summer break. Canvassers typically raise money for the environmental causes that are PIRG’s bread and butter, such as new incentives for solar power and campaigns to pressure fast-food companies to adopt antibiotic-free meat. But household names like the Sierra Club and the pro-LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign have also relied on the fund to help bring in contributions.  The fund does not readily disclose how much it raises or what share of donations it turns over to its clients, but it reported revenues of more than $33 million in 2016, the most recent year for which its tax filings are publicly available. At a recent meeting at the Chapel Hill office, which had 30 people at its peak, management told workers that so far this summer they had raised $300,000 for PIRG and Environment North Carolina, an advocacy group pushing for 100% renewable energy and bans on bee-killing pesticides.  Field organizers who failed to meet a quota $30 above the office’s average weekly yield were rapidly demoted to canvassers ― who had to meet the $160-to-$175 quota to make a base hourly rate of only $9.50. Those who missed the quota would have their rate cut to $7.25 for one week, according to a copy of a contract HuffPost obtained. After two weeks in a row ― or three nonconsecutive weeks in a single year ― they were automatically fired.  Her disillusionment was hardly unique. Reports going back years say the fund’s employees last an average of only a few weeks. The Daily Beast once found that the group recruited new workers at such a high rate that every day started with an orientation session for new hires. Groups like the Sierra Club have in the past dropped the fund over issues raised by its former workers.  You come back Monday and see people you were close with last Monday not coming back. … You usually end up feeling disposable. Emily Harding, former canvasser and union organizer in the Chapel Hill office  Management responded with what Owen Webster, 24, a canvasser and a union organizer in the Chapel Hill office, called “textbook union busting.” The fund refused to recognize the union based on the collected signatures, saying it preferred to have the National Labor Relations Board referee an election — a process that can take weeks, if not months. When union organizers proposed that a neutral third party review the signatures, they said management never responded.  The dismal working conditions that inspired them to unionize in the first place remained the same, four organizers told HuffPost. Then, on Aug. 2, the fund announced it was shutting down the Chapel Hill office, effective in one week. Though management didn’t specifically blame the union organizing for the closure, canvassers suspected that was the case, given that the Chapel Hill office is typically open year-round.  “The Fund responded to the canvassers and Campaign Workers Guild that we will follow the established process for determining if employees wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining, and as such we directed them to the National Labor Relations Board,” Rothschild said. “Of course, we would not interfere with the organizing process. We have not heard from the NLRB.”  Not The First Office To Be Closed  The face-off in Chapel Hill is part of a pattern, union organizers claim. In 2002 and again in 2005, the fund shut down its office in Los Angeles after workers there raised issues about long hours and unpaid work. In the first instance, the office was shuttered for one week after employees complained to a state labor board. In the second, the office vanished after what workers claim was an ugly campaign to derail a newly formed union.


theindependent--2019-02-19--Conservative London borough council with one of lowest tax rates in country aposexploitingapos l

Conservative London borough council with one of lowest tax rates in country 'exploiting' low-paid workers, union claims

A flagship Consevative council has been accused of “exploiting” low-paid workers while boasting it offers its taxpayers some of the cheapest council tax rates in the country.  The GMB union has claimed Wandsworth Council in southwest London is not paying the capital’s living wage of £10.55 an hour for some roles by outsourcing the work to private firms.  Less than a week ago, the local authority announced it was set to approve a budget, which would keep its council tax among the lowest in England.  Under the spending plan, a Band D home in the borough would pay just £770.31 in council tax each year, around half the average for a similar home elsewhere in London.  The council told residents they would still be: “continuing to benefit from one of the lowest council tax bills in the country”.  However, GMB, which represents staff employed by outsourcing contractors, accused the council of making savings by using workers from private companies to carry out tasks such as street cleaning, park maintenance and parking enforcement.  Staff providing council services from outside firms Quadron and ISS were being paid the national minimum of £7.83 an hour, while street cleaners employed by Continental Landscapes received £8.50 an hour, it claimed.  “Sadly, many seem oblivious at this exploitation of the lower paid workers many of whom are migrant workers working directly for them to keep the streets clean,” Paul Maloney, GMB Southern Regional Secretary said.  He added that the "exploitation" of the staff "working directly for the public in a borough with average earnings for residents working full time of £64,761 has to stop."  He said: "These lower paid workers deserve the support of the all fair minded people.”  The only Conservative council in inner London, Wandsworth is has been Tory-controlled since 1978.  It is often held up by the party as a model of good governance for its other local authorities across the country.  A council spokesman said: “A December meeting of Wandsworth Council welcomed the fact that the council currently pays all its staff at least the London Living Wage.  “Councillors also debated and unanimously agreed to record its support for all businesses in the borough, including the council's own contracting partners, who are taking steps to pay their London-based employees a London Living Wage.”  We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.


theintercept--2019-05-16--GOP-Led Efforts to Crush Unions Have a New Target Home Health Care Workers

GOP-Led Efforts to Crush Unions Have a New Target: Home Health Care Workers

pushing back against the latest Republican-led assault to weaken unions across the country, which targets in-home caregivers who work with Medicaid beneficiaries.  On Monday, attorneys general representing California, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging a new rule, announced earlier this month, that impedes home care workers from paying union dues through their Medicaid-funded paychecks. The rule, which goes into effect in July, will impact more than half a million workers in California alone, and several hundred thousand more in 10 other states.  The case was brought against the Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Alex Azar, and filed in San Francisco federal court. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants have illegally reinterpreted federal law “in service of anti-union objectives.” The new rule, they say, disrupts long-settled arrangements that allow seniors and individuals with disabilities — who work with state governments to set wages, benefits, and terms of service for their providers — to direct their own health care. More than 700,000 individuals across the five plaintiff states currently use consumer-directed Medicaid programs.  The lawsuit against the Trump administration rule, which was finalized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, comes the same week as two major developments for home care workers in the United States. In Washington state, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law the nation’s first publicly funded long-term care benefit, a hard-fought victory by advocates including SEIU 775, which represents 45,000 home care workers in Washington and Montana. National advocates say they will use Washington’s policy as a model to push for in other states.  Also this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a case led by a group of Minnesota home care workers who argued that a state law that made Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, their bargaining agent violated their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs pointed to Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the 2018 case struck down public sector unions charging fees to non-dues paying workers. The same conservative legal groups that supported Janus also helped the Minnesota home care providers, though this time their efforts failed.  While the high court’s ruling marks a setback to conservatives seeking to leverage free speech laws against union power, there are still dozens of other Janus-inspired lawsuits winding their way through federal courts, with two more lawsuits filed in the last month. This week’s lawsuit against HHS is the opposite of that — a proactive effort to get the courts to defend the rights of unionized workers.  that HHS and Azar have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the law governing how federal agencies can propose and implement regulation. Their complaint says the new rule “abruptly and without any sound rationale or conversations with affected states” overturns an Obama-era rule that confirmed the practice of taking direct deductions from home care workers’ paychecks. The Trump administration has been repeatedly accused of violating the APA, issuing new rules and mandates, and repealing old ones, often outside the bounds of established protocol.  “With this rule, the Trump administration is not only harming Medicaid skilled home care workers who have joined unions, but the millions of seniors and people with disabilities who depend on these indispensable workers,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement.  SEIU, which represents most home care workers, released a statement calling the rule “racist” — noting that 90 percent of home care workers are women, more than half are women of color, and a quarter are immigrants. “The administration’s attempt to silence home care workers reflects a long history in the United States of double-standard policies that deny working people of color like home care workers and domestic workers basic legal protections and rights, including protections for minimum wage and overtime pay, and the right to organize and form strong unions,” the union said. Without a union, SEIU added, independent home care workers earn a median wage of just $10.49 an hour, with no paid sick time or health care benefits. On Wednesday night, eight unionized home care workers, seven of whom are in SEIU, joined the multi-state lawsuit.  The federal Bureau for Labor Statistics projects that demand for home care workers will increase by 41 percent between 2016 and 2026, as the baby-boom generation continues to get older. Union membership gives home care workers an incentive to stay on the job, according to a 2017 survey by the National Employment Law Project of more than 3,000 home care workers, of which one-third were union members. The researchers found that unionized respondents were more likely to expect to be a home care worker a year from now, less likely to be looking for other jobs outside of home care, more likely to receive benefits, and had higher wages on average.  The Trump administration announced last August that it was considering scrapping the Obama-era rule that affirmed home care workers could deduct union dues from their Medicaid-funded paychecks. This practice has been criticized by conservatives who argue that in-home caregivers shouldn’t be able to “skim” government funds away to union coffers and that doing so “damages the integrity” of the Medicaid program.  Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which files lawsuits in favor of banning unionized workplaces from requiring dues for bargaining representation, praised the Trump administration’s new rule in a statement, calling it a “long-overdue rule [that] closes the illegal loophole created by the Obama Administration that has provided union officials with legal cover to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funds into union political and lobbying activities.”  In 2014, thanks to a lawsuit backed by Mix’s group, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that Illinois home care workers could not be required to pay union agency fees. Mix said the Trump administration’s new rule represents “another important step forward in protecting the rights of home care worker from rapacious union officials” and pointed to the 2014 Supreme Court decision, describing it as a situation where “[National Right to Work] Foundation attorneys freed homecare workers” from making payments.


thesun--2019-04-06--Equal pay union chief accused of hypocrisy as her female workers earn less than fellas

‘Equal pay’ union chief accused of hypocrisy as her female workers earn less than fellas

AN “equal pay” union chief has been accused of hypocrisy — as her female workers earn less than the blokes.  Frances O’Grady demanded action as the gender pay gap is more than five per cent at her Trades Union Congress.  Figures show there was no gap two years ago at the TUC — but women now earn 94p for every £1 men earn.  She issued a rallying call as firms were doing “nowhere near enough” to bring equality to the workplace.  TUC general secretary O’Grady’s pay grew last year by £18,000 bringing her total benefits package to £175,000.  But she hit out at City bosses last year for paying themselves “salaries that look like telephone numbers” as workers suffer major pay squeezes.  Ten thousand firms with 250 or more employees are required by the government to release details on the difference between what they pay men and women.  It comes as the gap has grown or stayed the same at more than half of companies.  Other unions also have wide gender pay gaps, figures show.  Unite the Union, whose chief is “Red” Len McCluskey, sees women earn 28 per cent less. Women working at Unison get 85p for every £1 men earn.  Analysis by the Gender Pay Gap Service shows that at GMB women get 69p for every £1 men earn. And teachers’ union the NASUWT says its women earn a third lower.  One Tory MP accused unions of “hypocrisy and double standards on pay”.  The TUC said it had “robust measures” to ensure low pay gaps and will continue to monitor them.


thetorontostar--2019-10-02--Tokyo Games Union wants venue inspection worker interviews

Tokyo Games: Union wants venue inspection, worker interviews

TOKYO - An international labour union investigating worker safety and the use of migrant workers at venues for next year’s Tokyo Olympics is asking for a joint inspection of construction sites and an open interview with workers.  The Building and Wood Workers’ International, in a report earlier this year titled “The Dark Side of the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics,” alleged patterns of overwork and contract irregularities at Tokyo venues with attention focused on foreign workers.  In an interview in Tokyo, BWI General Secretary Ambet Yuson said he will request a “construction audit or a joint inspection” in a meeting Thursday with officials of the local organizing committee, the Japan Sport Council and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.  “They are overprotective and don’t want the outside to come in,” Yuson told The Associated Press. “They are trying to downplay it, saying construction is almost over. But it’s not over until the Olympics are over. Construction is dangerous and every worker you save makes a difference.”  The Japan Sport Council — a national government body — is building the $1.25 billion national stadium, and the Olympic Village is being built by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.  Yuson said BWI, based in Switzerland, has interviewed 50 workers in Tokyo to gain a picture of labour practices at Olympic venues. He said the union was not granted access to the workers, and many who spoke fear they may lose their jobs if their names are revealed.  He said the majority are Japanese with a mix of Vietnamese, Chinese and Filipinos.  “If they don’t believe me, they can listen to these workers,” Yuson said.  Death by overwork, known as “karoshi,” is a problem in Japan where long working hours are common. Yuson also noted that many construction sites have signs about health and safety written only in Japanese, unhelpful for foreign workers.  Yuson said 300 workers — Japanese and non-Japanese — die annually on construction work in Japan.  Japan’s labour ministry, in a report issued 10 months ago, said two workers have died on projects for the Tokyo Olympics.  Yuson said he has asked the International Olympic Committee to step in, perhaps using leverage on the Tokyo organizing committee.  Many sports governing bodies have signed up the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which spell out practices for businesses and government. They include soccer governing bodies FIFA and UEFA, the Commonwealth Games Federation, the International Paralympic Committee and Qatar’s 2022 World Cup.  The IOC has added the UN guidelines to host city contracts that come into effect with the 2024 Paris Olympics. That excludes Tokyo, and the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, where independent labour unions are barred by China’s authoritarian government.  Yuson said Tokyo conditions have improved some since the report was issued earlier this year. But he said continued research had uncovered added problems linked to worker safety and overtime.  “We want to bring legacy to the Olympics, not only to the multinational companies, or to the athletes, but to the workers as well,” Yuson said.  A report released last year by the national government’s Board of Audit said Japan is likely to spend $25 billion overall to prepare for the games. This is public money, except for the $5.6 billion operating budget.  Organizers dispute the figure and say it’s about $12 billion, though what are Olympic costs — and what are not — is subject to heated debate.  Tokyo projected total costs of about $7.5 billion in its winning bid for the games in 2013.


thetorontostar--2019-10-12--Union boosts strike pay for GM workers as talks continue

NEW YORK - United Auto Workers said Saturday it’s increasing strike pay for workers picketing at General Motors as the walkout by more than 49,000 employees nears the four-week mark.  The union said Saturday that weekly pay will rise to $275 from $250 for members on strike, effective Sunday. It moves up the timing of a $25 weekly raise that had been planned to go into effect on Jan. 1. The union also voted to allow members to take part-time jobs and continue to receive strike pay, as long as they perform their picket duty.  The moves came as UAW and General Motors continued contract talks on Saturday, a day after the union made a counterproposal to management. Both sides discussed the issues that include wages, job security and investment in U.S. plants.  Earlier in the week, the union and GM blamed each other for not making more progress toward an agreement on a new contract. GM CEO Mary Barra stepped into the talks Wednesday, asking the union to wrap up outstanding issues and respond to a company offer made on Monday.  The strike began on Sept. 16 and shut down GM’s factories in the U.S. Factories in Canada and Mexico were later forced to close due to a lack of parts.  The strike has passed the point where GM can make up lost production, according to auto industry analysts. Workers, meanwhile, have been depending on their strike pay rather than their full pay from GM of about $1,200 per week before deductions.  Get more of the Star in your inbox Never miss the latest news from the Star. Sign up for our newsletters to get today's top stories, your favourite columnists and lots more in your inbox Sign Up Now


thetorontostar--2019-10-16--Workers celebrate deal with GM, show union power in industry

DETROIT - On the picket lines at a General Motors transmission plant in Toledo, Ohio, passing cars honked and striking workers celebrated a tentative contract deal by munching on 10 pizzas dropped off by a supporter.  They had carried signs for 31 days and demonstrated the muscle the United Auto Workers union still has over Detroit’s three manufacturers.  Details of the four-year pact weren’t released, but GM’s latest offer to end the monthlong strike included wage increases and lump-sum payments, top-notch health insurance at little cost to workers, promises of new products for many U.S. factories and a path to full-time work for temporary workers.  That’s a big difference from what GM wanted going into the talks: to slash total labour costs at its factories, which are about $13 per hour higher than at foreign automakers in the U.S.  Terry Dittes, the UAW’s chief bargainer with GM, said the deal offers “major gains” for 49,000 union workers who have been walking picket lines since Sept. 16. They’ll stay off work for at least a couple more days while union committees decide if they will bless the deal. Then workers will have to vote on it.  The deal shows that the union, with less than one-third of the 1.5 million members it had at its peak in 1979, still has a lot of clout with GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler.  “I think economically the UAW will do just fine in this agreement,” said Art Schwartz, a former GM negotiator who now is a labour consultant in Michigan. “The union certainly still has power in this industry.”  The strike immediately brought GM’s U.S. factories to a halt, and within a week, started to hamper production in Mexico and Canada. Analysts at KeyBanc investment services estimated the stoppage cut GM vehicle production by 250,000 to 300,000 vehicles. That’s too much for the company to make up with overtime or increased assembly line speeds. Analysts say the costs to GM will hit around $2 billion.  Workers, on the other hand, lost north of $3,000 each on average, the difference between their base wages and $250 per week in strike pay from the union.  “It’s nice to see there’s a deal, but without knowing the details I’m a little skeptical because we don’t know the highlights or the lowlights,” said worker Nick Kuhlman, who was among the strikers huddled around a burn barrel on a blustery, gray Toledo afternoon.  “I just hope it gets done,” said Toledo worker Mark Nichols, who thought the strike would last only a week or two and was ready to get back to work because his savings are running low.  GM apparently was able to close three of four factories that it wanted to shutter to get rid of excess capacity in slow-selling cars and components. The Detroit-Hamtramck plant will get a new electric pickup truck and stay open, but factories in Lordstown, Ohio; Warren, Michigan; and near Baltimore are to be closed. The Lordstown area will get an electric vehicle battery factory, but it won’t have nearly as many workers as the assembly plant that for years made compact GM cars.  The deal now will be used as a template for talks with GM’s crosstown rivals, Ford and Fiat Chrysler. Normally the major provisions carry over to the other two companies and cover about 140,000 auto workers nationwide. It wasn’t clear which company the union would bargain with next, or whether there would be another strike.  Schwartz said depending on the contents, the GM contract could influence wages and benefits in other industries. But he said foreign automakers with U.S. factories, mainly in the South, will give modest pay raises regardless of the GM contract, and shouldn’t be affected much.  Clarence Trinity, a worker at GM’s engine and transmission plant in the Detroit suburb of Romulus, Michigan, said the deal sounds good, “but I have to see it in writing or hear from the leaders.”  Trinity said he can’t figure out why it took 31 days for the strike to end. “I don’t understand what General Motors was expecting to get out of us. Maybe they didn’t expect us to strike. Maybe they didn’t expect us to strike this long.”  If all of the committees bless the deal, it’s likely to take several days for GM to get its factories restarted.  Matt Himes, a worker at the GM plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, heard news of the deal in Ohio, where he’s trying to help his wife sell their house after the Lordstown GM plant where he used to work was shuttered.  He hopes good news keeps coming. If they can sell their house, his wife can finally move south with him.  “I’m proud that we stuck our ground and everybody stuck together,” Himes said of the union workers during a phone interview. “And I’m relieved that hopefully it worked out, got us a good contract and we can move on and get back to work making cars like we should be.”  Wall Street investors liked news that the strike could end. GM shares jumped 2.6% just after the news broke, but eased back to close up 1% at $36.65.  GM and the union have been negotiating at a time of troubling uncertainty for the U.S. auto industry. Driven up by the longest economic expansion in American history, auto sales appear to have peaked and are now heading in the other direction. GM and other carmakers are also struggling to make the transition to electric and autonomous vehicles.  Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s trade war with China and his tariffs on imported steel and aluminum have raised costs for auto companies. A revamped North American free trade deal is stalled in Congress, raising doubts about the future of America’s trade in autos and auto parts with Canada and Mexico, which last year came to $257 billion.  Amid that uncertainty, GM workers have wanted to lock in as much as they can before things get ugly. They argue that they had given up pay raises and made other concessions to keep GM afloat during its 2009 trip through bankruptcy protection. Now that GM has been nursed back to health — earning $2.42 billion in its latest quarter — they wanted a bigger share.  The union’s bargainers have voted to recommend the deal to the UAW International Executive Board, which will vote on the agreement. Union leaders from factories nationwide will travel to Detroit for a vote on Thursday. The earliest workers could return would be after that.  In past years, it’s taken a minimum of three or four days and as long as several weeks for the national ratification vote.  This time around — with a federal corruption investigation that has implicated the past two UAW presidents and brought convictions of five union officials — many union members don’t trust the leadership. But they’re also tired of striking and may return before they vote on the deal themselves.  The strike had shut down 33 GM manufacturing plants in nine states across the U.S., and also took down factories in Canada and Mexico. It was the first national strike by the union since a two-day walkout in 2007, and the longest since a 54-day strike in Flint, Michigan, in 1998 that also halted most of GM’s production.  Associated Press writers Mike Householder in Detroit, John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, and Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report.


thinkprogress--2019-01-24--Airline worker unions say shutdown has caused unprecedented safety risks

Airline worker unions say shutdown has caused ‘unprecedented’ safety risks

In a joint statement released Wednesday, unions representing air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and pilots urged Congress and the White House to end the government shutdown, warning that the reduction in resources could affect their ability to prevent accidents.  “In our risk averse industry, we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the entire system will break. It is unprecedented,” the statement read.  The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) collectively represent more than 130,000 workers, many of whom have been unable to “come to work due to the financial toll of the shutdown,” according to the statement.  “The situation is changing at a rapid pace. Major airports are already seeing security checkpoint closures, with many more potentially to follow. Safety inspectors and federal cyber security staff are not back on the job at pre-shutdown levels,” the statement read. “In addition, we are not confident that the system-wide analyses of safety reporting data, which is used to identify and implement corrective actions in order to reduce risks and prevent accidents is 100 percent operational due to reduced [Federal Aviation Administration] resources.”  American Airlines Chairman and CEO Doug Parker told reporters in a call Thursday morning that the consequences of the shutdown “are really concerning to us.”  “Our business is so focused on safety that to the extent there are fewer TSA people or fewer air traffic controllers, what tends to happen is you get long lines at TSA but still the same level of scrutiny,” Parker said. “You get larger separation of aircraft so you have delays in airspace … So that’s what we fear may happen.”  “We don’t need distractions,” said Robert Isom, president of American Airlines Group and American Airlines. “We need people to be at work and confident.”  The record-breaking partial government shutdown is the longest in U.S. history, reaching 34 days on Thursday, with no end in sight. More than 800,000 federal workers are affected, about half of whom are working without pay.  The Senate plans to vote on competing proposals to re-open the government Thursday — one granting President Donald Trump $5.7 billion for a border wall and another on a Democratic measure that would re-open the government through February 8 without funding for a wall. As many Republican lawmakers have refused to consider legislation that does not include funds for Trump’s proposed border wall, it is unlikely that either measure will secure the 60 votes needed to pass.  Are you personally affected by the shutdown? Do you have a tip about the shutdown to share? Please get in touch with ThinkProgress. Email ekhatami@thinkprogress.org or contact us through a secure messaging platform.


truepundit--2019-01-01--Federal workers union sues Trump admin over government shutdown

One of the country’s largest unions representing federal workers is suing the Trump administration over the government shutdown, claiming that it is illegal to require employees to work without pay.  The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union released a statement on Monday announcing its lawsuit as the shutdown stretches past a week.  The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleges that the federal government is in violation of the law by requiring some federal workers, many of which are represented by the union, to work without pay during the shutdown.  “Our members put their lives on the line to keep our country safe,” J. David Cox Sr., president of AFGE, said in the release. “Requiring them to work without pay is nothing short of inhumane. Positions that are considered ‘essential’ during a government shutdown are some of the most dangerous jobs in the federal government.”  The partial shutdown began on Dec. 22 after the House and Senate failed to agree on an end-of-year government spending bill. – READ MORE


truepundit--2019-08-03--Union boss warns 2020 Dems You cant count on workers votes

Union boss warns 2020 Dems: You can’t count on workers’ votes

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka didn’t mince words during a closed-door meeting with representatives of Democratic presidential candidates ahead of Wednesday night’s primary debate, warning 2020 hopefuls not to count on union votes “simply because you have a ‘D’ next to your name.”  The Huffington Post reported that aides “from the entire field” of Democratic White House contenders were in attendance when Trumka told the group that while workers have traditionally supported candidates on the left, they best not take union interests for granted.  “It’s time to do better,” Trumka said. “I believe you can. I believe you will. But you can’t offer campaign rhetoric or count on workers’ votes simply because you have a ‘D’ next to your name.”  The union boss — who represents a federation of 55 unions — added, “We are caught in a web of century-old labor laws that prioritize unchecked corporate greed over all else. We can blame this White House all we want. But this isn’t new. – READ MORE


truepundit--2019-09-03--Union Bosses Fear Workers Will Stick with Trump Its a Serious Problem

Union Bosses Fear Workers Will Stick with Trump: ‘It’s a Serious Problem’

Union bosses, closely tied to the Democrat Party, say American union workers sticking with President Trump in 2020 and his economic nationalist agenda is “a serious problem” for them.  A report by the Wall Street Journal reveals how union bosses and Democrats are looking to peel off Trump’s support from American union workers who back his agenda, where most recently he has demanded multinational corporations move their production in China to the U.S.  “It’s a serious problem for us,” said Alan Netland, president of the North East Area Labor Council in Duluth, Minn., which represents 40,000 union members. “People may say, ‘I voted Republican and the world didn’t fall in, so maybe I better keep doing that.’”  Union officials, along with Democratic presidential candidates, are now trying to highlight what they see as a yawning gap between the president’s pro-worker rhetoric and his policies.  Democratic candidates have put appeals to working-class voters at the front of their campaigns. “I am a union man,” declared former Vice President Joe Biden, who leads in 2020 primary polls, during his campaign kickoff in Pennsylvania in May. – READ MORE


usatoday--2019-03-15--Bernie Sanders campaign workers unionize becoming likely first presidential campaign to do so

Bernie Sanders campaign workers unionize, becoming likely first presidential campaign to do so

WASHINGTON – Workers on Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign voted to unionize on Friday, becoming what is possibly the first presidential campaign staff in history to organize.  A majority of the Democrat's staff signed on to unionize, meaning all current and future employees would be part of the bargaining process for better pay and benefits. The workers, everyone below the title of deputy director, will be represented by United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) Local 400, which represents about 35,000 employees in six states and the District of Columbia.  Jonathan Williams, a spokesman for the UFCW, said to his knowledge the Sanders campaign is the first to unionize in history, marking a new path that could be used for campaigns for years to come.  "The best time to join a union is always now," Williams said. "High working standards should be the standard and I would certainly call upon every presidential campaign to look toward the leadership Bernie Sanders' campaign has shown."  Williams said the next steps are for workers to set up negotiations, something he said would have to happen very soon due to it being a campaign. The UFCW said the agreement could grow to more than 1,000 workers throughout Sanders' 2020 campaign. Employees who transition to the White House, if Sanders were to win, would not be members of the union.  "I hope this breakthrough serves as a model for other presidential campaigns, as well as party committees and candidates for other offices," UFCW Local 400 President Mark Federici said in a statement. "While political campaigns aren’t the easiest work environment, every worker has the right to respect and dignity."  MORE ELECTION NEWS: Who is running for president in 2020?  In January, Sanders apologized after multiple women said allegations of sexual assault within his campaign were not properly addressed during his 2016 bid for president.  The allegations from multiple women who worked on Sanders' campaign surfaced in the New York Times, which criticized Sanders' campaign for not adequately addressing incidents of sexual harassment, sexist mistreatment and pay disparities between men and women.  On CNN, Sanders apologized to "any woman who feels like she was not treated appropriately." When asked if he had been aware of the complaints, Sanders said, "I was a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case (to be elected as president)."  The allegations and his perceived failure to rectify the issues, female campaign workers told the Times, bring into question whether he can fight for women's interests if he again seeks the presidency.  "I am not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right in terms of human resources, in terms of addressing the needs that I'm hearing from now, that women felt they were disrespected, that there was sexual harassment which was not dealt with as effectively as possible," Sanders said on CNN.  The UFCW said Sanders' campaign stayed neutral in the unionizing process. Sanders' campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, wrote on Twitter the campaign was "very proud" of the unionizing effort.  "Bernie Sander is the most pro-union candidate in the field, he'll be the most pro-union president in the White House and we're honored that his campaign will be the first to have a unionized workforce," Shakir said.


usatoday--2019-08-14--aposYou are likely breaking the lawapos AOC slams blog founderaposs threat to fire unionizing

'You are likely breaking the law': AOC slams blog founder's threat to fire unionizing workers

WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Tuesday criticized Dave Portnoy, the founder of sports blog Barstool Sports, after he threatened to fire any employee that was seeking advice on how to start a union.  In a tweet Monday, Portnoy criticized employees at The Ringer, a sports and culture website, for trying to unionize. Portnoy linked to an article he previously wrote in 2015 when Gawker writers tried to unionize.  "I hope and I pray that Barstool employees try to unionize," he wrote in the 2015 post. "I can’t tell you how much I want them to unionize. Just so I can smash their little union to smithereens. Nothing would please me more than to break it into a million little pieces."  Rafi Letzter, a staff writer for Live Science, replied to Portnoy's tweet on Tuesday, saying his inbox is open to Barstool writers who want advice on starting a union.  More: Chris Cuomo’s ‘nuts,’ Curt Schilling’s a ‘patriot’ and more from Trump's day on Twitter  'Make sure we win': Donald Trump mixes 2020 politics into Pennsylvania energy speech  "If you work for @barstoolsports and DM this man I will fire you on the spot," Portnoy replied to the tweet.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, it is illegal for companies to fire or discipline employees for being involved with or trying to create a union.  Ocasio-Cortez said that Portnoy is likely breaking the law with his tweet.  "If you’re a boss tweeting firing threats to employees trying to unionize, you are likely breaking the law &can be sued,in your words, 'on the spot,'" she wrote in a tweet. "ALL workers in the US have the protected freedom to organize for better conditions."  The New York Department of Labor also pushed back against Portnoy's tweet.  "It is illegal to take any unfavorable action – including termination – against employees for union-related activities under the National Labor Relations Act," the department wrote on Twitter. "New York is a proud union state. We say no way, no how to intimidation, threats and union busting."  For his part, Portnoy responded to the New York congresswoman with a GIF.  Like what you’re reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more


veteranstoday--2019-02-07--Alecs Union-Busting Toolkit Used to Harm Workers and Bankrupt Unions

Alec’s Union-Busting Toolkit: Used to Harm Workers and Bankrupt Unions

Alec’s New Union-Busting Toolkit Illustrates the Goal Is to Bankrupt Unions Not Protect Workers  By Mary Bottari, who is a reporter for the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). She helped launch CMD’s award-winning ALEC Exposed investigation and is a two-time recipient of the Sidney Prize for public interest journalism from the Sidney Hillman Foundation.  It’s becoming an annual ritual. The Koch-funded cluster of groups, which has long abused their 501(c)3 IRS “charitable” designation by working to destroy political enemies, has concocted another “union busting” toolkit, giving ammunition and guidance to Republican politicians on how to attack and dismantle a major funder of the Democratic Party.  The toolkit appears to have been prepared by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) staff shortly after the Supreme Court’s June 2018 Janus vs. AFSCME decision, which held that unions could no longer require individuals in a bargaining unit who did not want to be members of a union to pay agency or “fair share” fees. Fair share fees compensate union staff who are required by law to represent all workers in a bargaining unit in their quest for better wages and working conditions.  ALEC is a collection of state politicians and corporate lobbyists from many of the largest corporations in the country. The Janus case was spearheaded by ALEC’s sister group, the $80 million State Policy Network (SPN), made up of 66 right-wing think tanks and other Koch-funded institutions.  The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) uncovered a secret SPN “toolkit” that coaches politicians to replace anti-union rhetoric with phrases like “worker freedom” and “worker choice.” Also uncovered by CMD and published in the Guardian, were SPN private fundraising letters bluntly detailing strategies for dismantling unions and striking a “mortal blow” to progressive politics and the Democratic Party.  Today, CMD brings to light another iteration of the toolkit, which makes it clear that the ultimate goal of the ALEC-SPN groups is the end of worker power. The “Public Sector Union Legislative Toolkit” marked “draft” and dated August 2018, is authored by ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force along with anti-union zealot “Vinnie” Vernuccio of Michigan’s Mackinac Center.  In public and in legal filings before the court, ALEC and SPN have been careful to frame their activities as advancing the “free speech” rights of individual workers over “forced unionization.” Yet, time after time, this lofty rhetoric falls by the wayside and the true agenda is revealed.  The new ALEC toolkit gets right down to bare-knuckle tactics.  The toolkit discusses the Supreme Court’s Janus vs. AFSCME decision and presents an extreme view of how states should become compliant. Don’t just stop the payments of agency fee payers, recommends ALEC, but stop all union payments and force them back to square one:  While many states were quick to become compliant in removing agency fee payers from automated deductions, liberty-oriented organizations do not believe solely exempting agency fee payers is in full compliance with the law. Because workers cannot waive a right they did not know they had, the entire premise that employees have opted into a union pre-Janus is null and void. This standard requires that states remove all public sector union members and agency fee payers despite any previous signatures or proof of membership from before the Janus decision. This places the burden on unions to go out and re-solicit individuals to obtain ‘affirmative consent.’  The toolkit touts ALEC’s 18 anti-union bills, including the misnamed “right to work” bill, and highlights a new post-Janus bill, the “Public Employee Rights and Authorization Act,” which states: “Any authorization of payments to a labor organization provided before June 27, 2018 [the day of the Janus ruling], is insufficient to constitute affirmative consent or a waiver of an employee’s rights under Janus v. AFSCME.”  In other words, ALEC would force all members to rejoin, no matter how enthusiastic their support for the union.  The toolkit also hails a case by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRWLDF), an SPN group, which is demanding that SEIU in California refund a whopping $100 million in fees to 40,000 current and former California state employees. NRWLDF talks like it represents 40,000 when only 18 plaintiffs signed onto the Hamidi v. SEIU case, which is still being litigated in federal court.  Some of these “claw back suits,” like the recent Lyon v. SEIU case in California, argue that the union knew, or should have known, that Janus was coming, so it should have stopped collecting fees. But past cases based on such theories have not been successful.  The unions have asserted a “good faith” defense in court, arguing that they are protected from monetary liability, because they collected fees according to the laws in effect at the time. Numerous circuit and appellate courts judges have agreed. In the Winner v. Rauner case, a judge with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that “SEIU’s reliance on relevant precedent was reasonable” and that they should not be required to have telepathic insights into future cases.  The right to form and join a trade union is an internationally recognized human right enshrined in numerous declarations and treaties as well as state and federal law. ALEC’s focus on tactics and cases such as these illustrate that the goal is not the “free speech” rights of a minority of workers who do not like their union. The goal is putting an end to all unions for all workers.  “When these corporations were pushing so-called ‘right to work’ laws, they said their goal was to expand workers’ rights by letting everyone choose whether they want to be part of a union. That was never true. Their latest legislative push makes it clear that their only goal is to make it impossible for workers to have powerful organizations of their own, that would let them negotiate with their employers on something like an equal footing. This latest set of lawsuits and strategies is aimed simply at bankrupting unions,” said Gordon Lafer, Associate Professor at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center.  “If, as these corporations want, unions are left with no staff, no attorneys, no offices, no meeting space, no ability to pay for workers to attend trainings or sit in on negotiations — unions will be dead, and workers will be back where everyone was 100 years ago, with no power to make sure that employees get their fair share of the profits that their work generates,” said Lafer.


vox--2019-06-25--Government workers dont have a federal right to unionize Democrats want to change that

Government workers don’t have a federal right to unionize. Democrats want to change that.

Congressional Democrats want to give all government employees the right to unionize.  House and Senate Democrats plan to introduce a bill on Wednesday that would give public-sector employees collective bargaining rights for the first time under federal law, according to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, which is pushing for the change. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) will introduce the bill, called the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act.  Unlike employees who work for private businesses, the nation’s 21 million government employees have no collective bargaining rights under federal law. Millions live in states that do let them organize — and millions don’t. The new bill would require all states to let government employees organize and negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions.  If passed (a big if), the bill would represent a major shift in US labor laws, essentially making the right to organize a fundamental right for all US workers.  The bill is a direct response to last June’s US Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which banned unions from collecting fees from teachers, firefighters, police, and other government employees they represent, unless those workers are card-carrying union members. That means workers who pay dues are unfairly subsidizing union benefits for their coworkers who choose to pay nothing, which strains a union’s finances.  It also comes at a time when Republican leaders, big businesses, and the courts have doubled down on their attempts to weaken the influence of labor unions and the workers they represent.  A record number of workers went on strike last year out of frustration with stagnant wages and benefit cuts. That included grocery store clerks and hotel housekeepers, but it all started with government employees: public schoolteachers.  Teachers in West Virginia started a national movement when they launched a major strike last February. They were angry that they hadn’t received an across-the-board salary raise since 2014 and were among the lowest-paid teachers in the country. A total of 35,000 educators and school staff didn’t show up for nearly two weeks.  Since then, more than 450,000 workers in the US have gone on strike or stopped working because of labor disputes, the highest number since 1986. What made the teacher strikes most remarkable, other than their sheer size, was the fact that many work stoppages happened in states where government employees have no legal right to unionize or go on strike.  In West Virginia, for example, government employees have no collective bargaining rights or a right to strike, so teachers unions in the state act more like a professional association than anything else. But none of that stopped all public school teachers in West Virginia from going on strike, shutting down all 680 public schools in the state for nine days. The walkout ended in March after the governor and state leaders agreed to give teachers what they wanted: a 5 percent raise and a hold on increasing health insurance premiums.  Hundreds of thousands of teachers in Arizona, Oklahoma, California, Kentucky, and Colorado have since followed suit.  Aside from boosting teacher pay and education spending, the teachers strikes have highlighted the fact that government employees have fewer legal rights than most American workers.  When President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave workers the legal right to unionize back in 1935, he specifically left out government employees from the National Labor Relations Act. He argued that American capitalism made private-sector workers uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. Collective bargaining for government employees was unnecessary and too complex, he believed, so he left it up to states to decide.  As part of collective bargaining, workers help negotiate contracts with employers to determine wages, raises and benefits. Roosevelt felt that private-sector workers needed that leverage because companies have an economic incentive to keep wages low. Governments don’t have that profit incentive, he argued, so government employees didn’t need collective bargaining rights.  But it didn’t take long for the public to realize that elected officials could exploit government employees too, slashing their pay and benefits in the name of balancing the budget.  In the 1950s, when public approval of labor unions was high, states began giving collective bargaining rights to government employees. The first US state to allow it was Wisconsin, in 1959. By the 1960s and 1970s, public-sector unions grew quickly to include teachers, firemen, police, and prison guards. In 1962, President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, which allowed federal employees to bargain over pay and working conditions only.  Collective bargaining is now permitted in three-fourths of US states. That impact on individual workers is huge. For example, unionized state employees earn, on average, 17 percent more than their non-unionized peers, according the House Committee on Labor & Education.  Southern states have been the most resistant to grant employees bargaining rights. Three of them specifically ban all government employees from unionizing: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. In Texas and Georgia, only police and firefighters can negotiate contracts together.  There are also a handful of states that haven’t banned public-sector collective bargaining, but don’t explicitly allow it either. Firefighters in Alabama and Mississippi; police in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, and Wyoming; and teachers in Arizona all work in a legal environment with no laws governing collective bargaining at the state level.  Public employees in all these states would benefit the most from the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, but the bill would also strengthen public-sector unions everywhere, potentially reversing decades of declining union membership and thwarting Republican efforts to weaken them.  In 2018, there were about 119 million private-sector workers in America and 21 million public-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the number of unionized workers in both sectors was nearly identical: 7.6 million versus 7.2 million. So while a fairly tiny share of private-sector workers (6.4 percent) belong to a union, about a third (33.9 percent) of public-sector workers do.  There are many reasons for this, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews points out:  That decline in private-sector unions is partly responsible for growing income inequality and stagnant wage growth in the US, research shows.  As all this happened, public-sector unionization actually got stronger. According to one study, only 10.8 percent of public-sector workers were unionized in 1960. Within 16 years, that number quadrupled. By 1979, about 40 percent of government employees were unionized.  Before long, unions for teachers, sanitation workers, police officers, firefighters, prison guards, and more became standard in much of America. The union representing most state and local employees, the AFSCME — along with teachers unions like the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — became powerful political actors and, in some cases, the public image of labor unions.  That explains why the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus last year was considered devastating to the US labor movement.  Nearly a year ago to the day, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to government employees.  In the case Janus v. AFSCME, conservative lawyers challenged the practice of public sector unions charging “agency fees” to employees who decline to join the union but who still benefit from the deals it bargains. The fees are a bit lower than union dues.  In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by the four other conservative justices, the Court ruled that requiring public employees to pay agency fees is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  The logic is that unions are political actors, and by allowing unions to charge agency fees, state governments are basically forcing employees to financially support a political organization that they may not agree with. That, the plaintiffs claimed, is compelled speech and thus unconstitutional.  Twenty-eight conservative states already have “right to work” laws banning all unions from collecting agency fees. These laws create the so-called “free-rider” dilemma: people don’t have to join unions or pay agency fees to get the unions’ benefits, so the unions lose members and political influence.  The 22 states that don’t have right-to-work laws include heavily unionized ones like California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio; those five states alone account for nearly half of America’s total union members. That helps explain why the union movement views agency fees as necessary to their survival. Without the fees, labor activists feared that public-sector unions could shrivel and take the broader union movement with them.  So far, those fears appear largely overblown.  In California and other states without right-to-work laws, the percentage of public employees represented by a union (including members and nonmembers) dropped 1.1 percentage points, to 52.8 percent in 2018, a slight drop from 53.9 percent a year earlier, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By comparison, the 28 states that had already outlawed fair-share fees prior to Janus showed no change in the percentage of government employees represented by a union. Public sector unions in those states even saw a tiny bump in membership rates.  While Janus has hardly decimated unions for government employees, labor organizers are now pushing for policies that will move the labor movement toward greater progress.  The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act would recognize a fundamental right for government workers to unionize. States would have to guarantee them the following: the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment; the right to strike (with few exceptions); access to dispute resolution forums, such as mediation or arbitration; voluntary payroll deduction for union dues and the right to sue in court to enforce these rules.  The bill would essentially cancel the Janus ruling by outlawing the free-rider option, while expanding union rights to government workers in all states.  The bill is similar to one that House Democrats introduced last month for private-sector workers. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) pushes back against Republican-backed right-to-work laws that have cropped up in more than two dozen states in the past decade.  Still, it’s highly unlikely that any Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate would ever touch these new labor reform bills. In fact, they’re moving in the other direction, trying to pass a separate bill in the Senate that implements right-to-work laws in every state. And anti-union groups have already started bashing the Democrats’ labor reform bill, calling it “anti-worker” and “anti-freedom.”  Even with such slim prospects, House Democrats are introducing these reforms at a crucial moment in the US labor movement. Despite declining union membership, more and more Americans these days support the idea of unionizing. In fact, there’s been a sharp increase in public support for labor unions in the past 15 years, according to Gallup.  On top of that, a record number of workers across the country have been going on strike in the past year, demanding higher wages and better benefits as the economy expands. Democrats have sensed this shift in favor of unions, and their new bills would give workers even more momentum.


yna--2019-10-15--Seoul subway's unionized workers hold talks with management

The union is demanding the abolition of the wage-peak system, the hiring of more workers and better working conditions to improve safety in the operation of subways for a daily average of 7.5 million users.  (END)


abcnews--2019-11-20--UAW president steps down as GM sues rival over union bribery

United Auto Workers President Gary Jones abruptly resigned Wednesday, capping a tumultuous day that saw union leaders move to oust him, and General Motors accusing rival Fiat Chrysler in a lawsuit of bribing union officials to get more favorable contract terms from the UAW.  Jones has notified the union that he would retire, his attorney, Bruce Maffeo of New York, said in an email.  The news of Jones’ resignation came shortly after the UAW’s International Executive Board filed paperwork to expel him and Regional Director Vance Pearson from the union over allegations raised by a federal investigation into union corruption that has resulted in multiple arrests starting in 2017. The move to oust the two leaders would have brought union trials for both.  Pearson is facing criminal charges while Jones has not been charged but federal agents raided his suburban Detroit home in August.  In the email, Maffeo said Jones decided to step down before learning of the move to oust him.  Jones, who has been a UAW member for 44 years and started as a factory worker, stepped down to let the union focus on its core mission of improving the lives of members and their families, Maffeo said.  Pearson’s status with the union was not clear late Wednesday. A message was left seeking comment from his attorney.  Jones’ departure came just hours after General Motors filed a racketeering lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, alleging that its crosstown rival got an unfair business advantage by bribing UAW officials.  The unprecedented lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleges that FCA was involved in racketeering by paying millions in bribes to get concessions and gain advantages in three labor agreements with the union.  The lawsuit alleges that Fiat Chrysler corrupted the bargaining process with the UAW in the 2009, 2011 and 2015 union contracts to gain advantages over General Motors.  “FCA was the clear sponsor of pervasive wrongdoing, paying millions of dollars in bribes to obtain concessions” from the union, GM General Counsel Craig Glidden said. “FCA’s manipulation of the collective bargaining process resulted in unfair labor costs and operational advantages for it, causing harm to GM.”  In a statement, Fiat Chrysler called the lawsuit “meritless” and said it would defend itself vigorously. It also accused GM of trying to disrupt its proposed merger with French automaker PSA Peugeot as well as ongoing contract talks with the UAW.  “We are astonished by this filing, both its content and its timing,” Fiat Chrysler said. “We intend to vigorously defend against this meritless lawsuit and pursue all legal remedies in response to it.”  In its complaint, GM accused Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, who died last year, of authorizing bribes worth more than $1.5 million to union officials in a scheme to impose unexpected labor costs on GM. The higher costs were designed to force GM to merge with FCA, which had rejected Marchionne’s offer to combine the companies, the lawsuit said.  Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business and law professor, said one company suing another over bribes to union officials is without precedent. While GM’s allegations are believable given what federal prosecutors have already uncovered, it will have the burden of convincing a jury that the scheme actually happened, Gordon said.  In addition to Fiat Chrysler, GM’s lawsuit names former FCA labor relations chief Alphons Iacobelli, and former FCA officials Jerome Durden and Michael Brown as defendants. All have pleaded guilty in the federal corruption probe, which has alleged that Fiat Chrysler bribed UAW officials to keep them “fat, dumb and happy.”  Authorities have said that payments were made through a training center jointly run by the company and the UAW. Durden handled the training center’s finances, and Brown helped run the center.  After leaving Fiat Chrysler, Iacobelli went to GM’s labor relations department in 2016. He was suspended after his indictment and fired in December of 2017.  In a separate statement, the UAW said it had multiple safeguards in place to ensure the integrity of its contracts negotiated with Fiat Chrysler, including reviews by local and international union officials.  “We are confident that the terms of those contracts were not affected by Iacobelli’s misconduct, nor that of any UAW officials involved in the misuse of joint program funds at FCA,” the statement said.  The UAW says it’s committed to make whatever changes are needed to make sure misconduct never happens again.  Glidden told reporters that in the three UAW contracts, FCA was able to reduce its labor costs because the union allowed it to hire more temporary and lower-paid workers than GM.  In 2007, the union agreed that new hires would be paid less than longtime workers, setting up a “second-tier” of employees who were paid less. FCA has more second-tier workers than either of its Detroit competitors.  The Center for Auto Research, an industry think tank, calculated earlier this year that Fiat Chrysler’s total labor costs including wages and benefits were about $55 per hour, giving it an $8 per hour benefit over GM and a $6 advantage over Ford.  Glidden said GM is not suing the UAW because it believes that responsibility rests with FCA, which was the “orchestrator” of the conspiracy.  He said GM is seeking substantial damages in the case, but he could not give a specific amount. The lawsuit says GM doesn’t seek to reduce wages or benefits of any UAW workers.  Last week, a retired union vice president and former GM board member became the 13th person to be charged in the federal probe of the union and auto companies.  Joe Ashton is accused of receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks from a contractor who made watches for union members. The 58,000 watches, purchased through the GM-UAW joint training center, are still in storage five years later.  Last month, the union settled with GM after a 40-day strike, and Ford workers reached an agreement shortly after. Intense talks with Fiat Chrysler began Monday, with the possibility of another strike possible due in part to union members’ distrust of UAW leadership.


abcnews--2019-11-30--Fiat Chrysler, auto union reach tentative deal on contract

The United Auto Workers and Fiat Chrysler reached a tentative agreement Saturday on a new four-year contract, which includes a total of $9 billion in investments but still needs final approval from workers.  Both sides declined to offer details on the deal, but it includes a $9,000 bonus for workers when the agreement is ratified, a promise not to close any factories where vehicles are assembled for the next four years, and a commitment to keep making vehicles at a plant in Belvidere, Illinois, according to a person briefed on the matter. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential.  The UAW-FCA national council will meet Dec. 4 to go over the details of the tentative deal. If adopted, it would go to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ 47,000 union workers, and a vote by hourly and salary workers could begin on Dec. 6.  Fiat Chrysler is the last company to settle on a new contract with the union. GM settled Oct. 31 after a bitter 40-day strike that paralyzed the company’s U.S. factories, but Ford reached a deal quickly and settled in mid-November.  Talks have focused on Fiat Chrysler for almost two weeks, and both sides negotiated into the early morning hours earlier this week before taking a break for the Thanksgiving holiday.  The Illinois factory west of Chicago now makes the Jeep Cherokee small SUV and employs about 3,700 union workers on two shifts.  Of the $9 billion in total investments included in the deal, half were newly announced Saturday, and the other $4.5 billion are investments announced earlier this year.  The $9,000 ratification bonus isn’t as much as the $11,000 that GM workers got, but it’s equal to the money paid to Ford workers. Both companies gave workers a mix of pay raises and lump-sum payments, ratification bonuses, an end to a two-tier pay scale for full-time workers and a clear path for temporary workers to go full-time.  The union also got commitments for new vehicles to be built at several GM and Ford factories.  Even if union leaders approve the deal, ratification isn’t guaranteed. In 2015, workers voted down the first deal reached with Fiat Chrysler but approved a second one.  Fiat Chrysler apparently is agreeing to the “pattern” agreement reached with GM and Ford even though the company’s CEO said earlier this month that all of the companies are in different labor circumstances. Following the same deal would cost Fiat Chrysler more because the makeup of its workforce is different. FCA has more temporary workers than either GM or Ford, and it also has more so-called “second tier” workers hired after 2007 who now make less than longtime workers.  The deal with Ford and GM gives pay raises to workers hired after 2007, so they reach top UAW production wages of more than $32 per hour within four years. It also gives temporary workers a path to full-time jobs within three years.  Ford has about 18,500 workers hired after 2007 who will get big pay raises with the new contract, compared with GM's 17,000. Fiat Chrysler has over 20,000 union employees hired after 2007.  In addition, about 11% of Fiat Chrysler’s UAW workforce is temporary, while Ford has a cap at 8% and GM is around 7%.  Fiat Chrysler in past years has enjoyed a labor-cost advantage compared with Ford and GM. FCA’s labor costs, including wages and benefits, amounted to $55 per hour going into the contract talks, while they were $61 at Ford and $63 at GM, according to the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank. That compares with an average of $50 per hour at U.S. plants owned by foreign-based automakers.  General Motors last week filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against FCA, alleging that the company bribed UAW officials to get more favorable contract terms than GM. Fiat Chrysler has called the lawsuit “meritless.”  General Motors alleges that the move, which it contends cost it billions of dollars, was aimed at forcing a merger with Fiat Chrysler that was desperately sought by FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne, who died in 2018. Last month, Fiat Chrysler announced plans to merge with France’s PSA, which will create the world’s fourth-largest auto company worth $50 billion.  The Fiat Chrysler talks could be complicated by an ongoing federal bribery and embezzlement investigation into some of the UAW’s leadership, which started at Fiat Chrysler. Many workers at the company have been suspicious of the union’s leadership since the scandal became public in 2017.  Union President Gary Jones, whose home was raided by federal agents and is implicated in the scandal, resigned from the union last week. He has not been charged but has been linked to a plot to embezzle union conference funds to buy expensive cigars, wines, rounds of golf and stays at exclusive villas. Jones lawyer J. Bruce Maffeo says all the expenses were reported in detail and never questioned by the union’s accounting department or executive board.  Vice President Rory Gamble, who negotiated the contract with Ford, is now acting president.  This story has been updated to correct that the deal includes a promise not to close any assembly factories for the next four years, rather than not to close any factories at all for the next four years.


abcnews--2019-11-30--The Latest: Fiat Chrysler, auto union agree tentative deal

The Latest on contract talks between the United Auto Workers union and Fiat Chrysler (all times local):  The United Auto Workers union says it has reached a tentative deal with Fiat Chrysler.  The agreement reached Saturday still needs to get approval from workers.  A person briefed on the matter says the deal includes a $9,000 ratification bonus, a promise not to close any assembly factories for the next four years and a commitment to keep making vehicles at a plant in Belvidere, Illinois. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are private.  Top union leaders still have to approve the deal, as do factory-level officials who are likely to gather next week to vote on it. Then it must be ratified by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ 47,000 union workers.  Fiat Chrysler is the last company to settle on a new contract with the union. GM settled Oct. 31, which Ford settled in mid-November.  This item has been updated to correct that the deal includes a promise not to close any assembly factories for the next four years, rather than not to close any factories at all for the next four years.  A person briefed on the matter says the United Auto Workers and Fiat Chrysler are close to reaching a tentative contract agreement.  The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are private, says the deal could be finalized Saturday.  The person says it includes a $9,000 ratification bonus, a promise not to close any assembly factories for the next four years and a commitment to keep making vehicles at a plant in Belvidere, Illinois.  If the deal becomes final, top union leaders and factory-level officials likely will gather next week to vote on it. Then it must be ratified by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ 47,000 union workers.  Fiat Chrysler is the last company to settle on a new contract with the union. GM settled in October and Ford reached a deal earlier this month.  This item has been updated to correct that the deal includes a promise not to close any assembly factories for the next four years, rather than not to close any factories at all for the next four years.


abcnews--2019-12-16--Southern Poverty Law Center employees vote to join union

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Employees of Southern Poverty Law Center civil rights organization the have voted to unionize, the SPLC announced Monday.  The employees voted to join the Washington-Baltimore News Guild. The vote was 142-45, according to the SPLC union twitter account.  Karen Baynes-Dunning, interim president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the organization's employees “have spoken through a process that gave every eligible person the opportunity to weigh in on this important decision."  “We go forward as one SPLC with gratitude for the commitment and engagement of our talented staff and the work we will continue doing together," Baynes-Dunning said in a statement announcing the union vote.  A supermajority of employees this fall requested representation by the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local 32035 of The News Guild-Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.  The nonprofit is perhaps best known for its work monitoring hate organizations but also does extensive civil rights litigation.  The move to unionize follows upheaval at the organization that saw the departure of longtime leaders and the announcement of a review of workplace culture.  The organizing committee has said that it wants to form a strong union that lays a "foundation for a legacy of equal rights, respect and dignity for all workers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical ability, and national origin."


birminghammail--2019-01-15--D-Day on bins - strike could be imminent warns union chief

D-Day on bins - strike 'could be imminent', warns union chief

A strike could be 'imminent' - that was the warning today from negotiators at the union Unite, which represents the majority of the city's bins workforce.  Cabinet members are meeting this morning (Tuesday) at the Council House to agree the next steps in the dispute that has left some city streets piled up with uncollected rubbish bags.  "We already have an overwhelmingly clear mandate from our workforce to strike," said acting regional secretary for Unite, Howard Beckett.  "We are waiting to see what deal emerges today and will respond very quickly to that."  The cabinet will meet in public briefly before moving into private session to discuss the next steps. We understand an offer designed to end the dispute will be discussed and, subject to approval, will be presented to the union.  Councillors must decide whether to succumb to the union’s demands for a ‘parity payment’ for each of its 300 members, which they say would match a payment made to a group of around 30 GMB union members last year.  It has been claimed the amount at stake could exceed £1 million, though neither the city council or the union would be drawn on the figures under negotiation.  A public report to the meeting, usually published days in advance to allow councillors and the public to read it, remained absent from the council papers at 11pm last night.  It is due to be presented to the Cabinet meeting by the city’s chief executive Dawn Baxendale.  Speaking to BirminghamLive, firebrand union leader Beckett said the union and bin workers were ready to respond 'positively' to a council offer.  “I am meeting worker representatives on Wednesday to discuss anything presented by the council. If there is not a positive outcome then we will have to agree what to do next. We have a mandate to strike in place."  If the union reject the council offer, should one be made, they would agree the next course of action. It would need to give two weeks' notice of strike.  The city’s streets are already seeing bin bags piled up, in some areas since before Christmas, with fears that rats are now thriving among the rotting rubbish.  Unite members agreed to work to rule from December 29th in order to safeguard services for residents and “give the council time to consider what to do”, said Mr Beckett.  He remained staunch in his conviction that the council had made ‘clandestine payments’ to members of the GMB union, which represents around 30 bin workers, as a “sweetheart” payout to reward them for not striking during the bitter dispute of summer 2017.  He claims other explanations for the payments are “nonsense” and don’t hold up to detailed scrutiny.  The only other interpretation of the decision to make the payments is that the council officers negotiating with GMB were “incredibly inept and incompetent”.  “What this dispute amounts to is that the council chose to make a payment to GMB members, which it did secretly and using confidentiality agreements which every individual worker had to sign.  “I don’t know what planet the council were on when they made that agreement, to think this would not come out and that we would accept it.”  The city council and the GMB union have both fervently argued the payment was in settlement ahead of threatened legal action amid claims that the GMB members were not consulted on changes to their pay and conditions contained in a memorandum of understanding that ended the strike.  Conservative councillors Deirdre Alden and Robert Alden and the local leader of the GMB union, Joe Morgan, have each demanded "full transparency" from the city's Labour leadership around the deal done with dustmen that triggered the bins chaos.  Joe Morgan, regional secretary for GMB Birmingham and West Midlands, claimed his officials are facing 'targeted harassment and abuse' and have accused fellow union leaders at Unite of being deliberately misleading about the payments.  Councillors say only a full release of all details, including emails, minutes of meetings, the full ACAS deal and the total costs involved, will allay fears of dirty dealing over the dispute.  The Tories are also demanding the council curbs its use of "delegated decision making" - a process which allows a small number of senior councillors to make decisions in private. It comes amid claims that a third of all decisions are made under delegated powers.  "This issue highlights the inherent problems with the Executive’s excessive use of delegated decision making which serves to obscure proper transparent and accountable decision making," says the motion going to Birmingham City Council's full council meeting later today. (Tuesday 15th).  The two unions claim the other is betraying the principles of trade unionism and pitting workers against each other.  Beckett released a video message to bin workers yesterday, thanking them for their efforts and confirming his determination to get the best outcome for them. Watch an excerpt below.


birminghammail--2019-02-01--Birmingham bins strike imminent as union rejects councils reasonable offer

Birmingham bins strike imminent as union rejects council's 'reasonable offer'

A new all-out bins strike is more likely than ever after union chiefs rejected a 'reasonable offer' by the city council to bring the dispute to an end.  Unite's 24-hour ultimatum to Birmingham City Council - to come up with a deal by this afternoon or face escalating action - has been and gone.  Howard Beckett, for Unite, said this afternoon it had "not had a satisfactory response from the council about a way forward in resolving the dispute.  "As a consequence Unite’s representatives have met today (Friday 1 February) and have agreed that the industrial action will be escalated. The final details of how Unite plans to escalate the industrial action will be announced on Monday."  In response the council said: "We utterly refute the allegations made and are extremely disappointed that the reasonable offer we have put forward has been rejected by Unite on behalf of their members.  "The Unite statement (giving an ultimatum) was not in the spirit of the ongoing discussions at Acas, but we remain committed to resolving this dispute and the offer is still on the table.  "To be absolutely clear, we have not blacklisted or discriminated against Unite members. The council condemns blacklisting of any sort.  "As previously stated, the payments to GMB members were properly made for a failure to consult during the talks that ended the 2017 dispute.  "We would urge Unite to continue talks as we want to resolve this matter, so citizens get the refuse collection service they rightly expect and deserve."  The union had given the council a 24-hour deadline to settle the issue after they claimed members taking industrial action were being "blacklisted", with holiday requests denied.  The threat came after talks between both sides failed to settle the dispute, which has seen crews working to rule - leaving rubbish piled high in some streets.  But despite announcing escalation would be taking place, the union added that it remained open to the city council making an "11th hour offer".  Mr Beckett said: "This dispute was created by Birmingham City Council and they can bring it to an end by making a fair offer to our members. If they refuse to do so then regrettably Birmingham residents are set to face further disruption to their refuse service in the coming weeks. This is not what Unite members want to see.”  The fresh round of talks followed a decision by the city council's Cabinet two weeks ago to explore legal action against Unite on the grounds that the current industrial action was unlawful, while also seeking binding arbitration talks. It has instead continued to discuss a possible compromise settlement via non-binding talks.  News of the pending strike was greeted with dismay by opposition Conservative councillors.  They said they were seeking "urgent answers" from council leader Ian Ward about why the legal threat had not been pursued.  Councillor Deirdre Alden (Con, Edgbaston) Shadow Cabinet Member for clean streets, waste and recycling said: "If, as he claims, this strike is unlawful then he has a duty to those residents to seek redress through the courts, something he should have done when the unions first gave notice back in November but something he should definitely have acted on when finally making the decision to do so in January.  "If in fact the strike is not unlawful then he has needlessly antagonised the unions and workers further and put an amicable agreement even further out of reach. Either way the responsibility for this fiasco lies firmly at his door. ”  Group leader Coun Robert Alden added: "It is the Birmingham residents who are paying the price for this infighting within the Labour movement with rubbish mounting up on the streets and their hard earned money paying what is at present a £350k a week bill but which is set to rise even further.”  An average of 1,030 complaints of missed collections were being made to the city council EVERY DAY – up from around 214 a day during the first days of the dispute.  The city is facing a rising bill to fund 10 extra crews of agency staff, additional fuel costs and other resources. The cost of the dispute to date has not yet been revealed - but last week the Cabinet agreed to delegate to senior officers the ability to draw down up to £350,000 a week to cover costs.  On average bin collectors are completing 20 FEWER ROUNDS every day.  An explosive series of events was sparked on January 15 after the council's Labour-led Cabinet voted to seek a court injunction to end industrial action by bin workers, claiming the action was 'unlawful'.  The prospect of a return to the worst conditions during the summer strike of 2017, which ran for 222 days, is a blow to the reputation of the city, just as the council seeks to build momentum for the 2022 Commonwealth Games, showpiece developments in the city centre and the arrival of HS2.  At the heart of the dispute are payments - now known to total around £68,000 - which the council made to around 30 binmen in the GMB union who did not take part in the 2017 strike which paralysed the city.  Unite has claimed the payments were a "sweetheart" deal, rewarding GMB staff for not joining the strike. They are demanding payment for each of its 300 members to serve as compensation.  It is a claim vehemently denied by both the city council and GMB, who say it was a settlement payment in lieu of claims about failing to consult them over changes to contracts.  Unite workers have been on a work to rule and overtime ban over the dispute since December 29. In that time bin collections across the city have been badly hit.


birminghammail--2019-11-10--Union issues Asda customer warning over potential supermarket boycott

The row over new contracts for workers at supermarket giant Asda could persuade shoppers to go elsewhere, a union is claiming.  The GMB said a survey of 1,000 people it commissioned showed that almost two out of five said they would be less likely to shop at Asda after hearing the terms of the new contract.  The union has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with Asda over the new contracts, which it says removes paid breaks and changes shift patterns.  Asda says most of its employees have signed the new contract, adding that basic pay will increase, while workers will receive an enhanced package including an annual bonus.  GMB national officer Gary Carter said: "Asda used to be rooted in family values, this polling shows that's what Asda shoppers expect.  "Asda customers overwhelmingly want to be served by people who are respected and treated well in their jobs - no one wants to feel bad about doing their shopping, especially at Christmas.  "GMB don't take any joy from this, because our members' jobs depend on people shopping at Asda but people want to feel good about where they shop and clearly could vote with their feet.  "Asda could still rethink their plans and simply stop going down this route of imposing punishing new terms on loyal workers who work hard for them every day. GMB is calling on them to do just that."  An Asda spokesman said. "We have always been clear that we understand people have responsibilities outside of work and we will always help them to balance these with their work life.  "We will not be asking them to constantly move the time they work, their days or departments."


breitbart--2019-09-02--Elizabeth Warren Goes All Out for Labor Day Unions Will Rebuild Americas Middle Class

Elizabeth Warren Goes All Out for Labor Day: 'Unions Will Rebuild America’s Middle Class'

Warren used both of her verified Twitter accounts to tweet messages of support for unions and declared that they will “rebuild” the middle class.  “Unions built the middle class—and unions will rebuild the middle class,” Warren wrote. “If we want more good American jobs, then we need stronger unions and more power in the hands of the people.”  “I’m proud to be fighting alongside our unions,” she added, later suggesting that unions are “under attack”:  It is true that Warren has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the labor movement, despite membership declining across the board. It has dipped from 12.3 percent participation to 10.5 percent over the last decade, according to Illinois Public Media.  Pew Research Center also found that the “share of American workers who belong to labor unions has fallen by about half” during the past few decades, going from 35 percent in 1954 to 10.5 percent in 2018:  Warren joined airport food workers in a minimum wage protest organized by Unite Here at the Reagan National Airport in July, alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – another notable pro-union Democrat candidate – and Mayor Bill de Blasio (D):  Warren is spending Labor Day campaigning in New Hampshire. She is expected to deliver remarks at a house party in Hampton Falls at approximately 2:30 p.m. Eastern.