Thursday, December 31, 2015
31,000 Louisianans set to lose food stamp benefits on Jan. 1
Crucial financial benefit to go as result of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s decision to reinstate work requirement in state
December 29, 2015 2:57PM ET
Joanika Davis relies on the $194 per month she receives in food stamp benefits every month to help her get by as she searches for employment.
But on Jan. 1, Davis is set to lose that financial lifeline — one of approximately 31,000 Louisianians set to suffer as a result of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s decision to reinstate the work requirement for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in his state.
SNAP rules typically allow full benefits to single able-bodied adults only if they have jobs or are enrolled in a job-training program. Otherwise, they may access food stamp benefits for no more than three months every three years. States with high unemployment can apply for a federal waiver, dropping that work requirement and allowing single adults to access full benefits regardless of their job status.
Since the beginning of the Great Recession, nearly every state in the country sought and was granted a federal waiver at some point. But recently, a number of states with Republican governors have allowed their waivers to expire, citing improved economic circumstances and a desire to get their food stamp recipients back to work. Jindal, a Republican, allowed Louisiana’s waiver to lapse on Oct. 1.
“We continue to seek opportunities for SNAP recipients to increase their self-sufficiency. Engaging in work activities is a key step in that transition,” said Suzy Sonnier, the head of Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services, in a Sept. 30 statement.
Starting in January, Davis, who told Al Jazeera that she is still hunting for a job, will have to find ways to make up a monthly shortfall of nearly $200. “Why should I have to fight for food right now?” she asked. “Why should I have to fight to drink water?"
And it is not only people in Louisiana who are losing out.
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming have recently allowed the work requirement to be reimposed, leaving 28 states with their food stamp waivers intact in fiscal year 2016.
The people affected by the reinstatement of the work requirement tend to be among the poorest of the poor, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an economic think tank. In 2014 able-bodied, childless, unemployed adults on food stamps had an average of $2,200 in gross income, the center found.
It also found that states that reimpose the work requirement tend to see a sudden sharp drop in SNAP participants, suggesting that thousands of unemployed recipients are unable to find work and maintain their eligibility.
“The idea that anybody is choosing not to work because of $190 dollars a month in food stamps — that’s really kind of a stereotype,” said Steve Spires, a senior policy analyst for the Louisiana Budget Project. “The reality is a lot of people want to work. There simply aren’t jobs. And with the price of oil going down and more job losses, it’s getting worse.”
In Louisiana, at least, the reimposition of the work requirement may prove temporary. John Bel Edwards, the Democrat who will succeed Jindal as governor on Jan. 11, has vowed to request a federal waiver on his first day in office. He has written to Sonnier and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, asking that they work to prevent childless unemployed adults in Louisiana from experiencing a gap in their benefits.
Additional reporting by Jonathan Martin
Bitter Coca-Cola Labor Dispute Ends In Contract
Connor D. Wolf
Reporter
The Daily Caller
12/30/2015
CHICAGO, IL - APRIL 17: Bottles of Coca-Cola soda are offered for sale at a grocery store on April 17, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. The Coca-Cola Co. reported an 8 percent increase in net income for the first quarter of 2012 with global volume growth of 5%. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
∧
Two Illinois Coca-Cola facilities and the Teamsters union were able to agree on a labor contract proposal Tuesday night after nearly a two-month long bitter labor dispute.
Local 727 of the union accused the soft drink giant of purposely undermining negotiations. The union filed numerous federal complaints and launched a strike against the company as a result. Local 727 eventually agreed to federal mediation after the soft drink giant suggested it. Now the two sides managed to arrive at a contract proposal.
“We are pleased Coca-Cola Refreshments and Teamsters Local 727 have tentatively agreed to the terms for a new three-year contract,” a company representative told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We are pleased to welcome our associates back to work.”
The tentative agreement will still need to be agreed on by unionized workers at the facilities. Nevertheless, the union has since ended the strike which began Dec. 3, a few days after its last contract expired. Primary issues throughout the negotiations included how to handle shift preferences, adjustments to the grievance procedure, mechanics testing, scheduling and employees being guaranteed 40-hour workweeks.
“These hardworking men and women walked the picket line for 27 days fighting for respect and a fair contract from their employer, and they’ve achieved both,” Local 727 Secretary-Treasurer John T. Coli said in a statement. “Our members should be extremely proud of themselves for taking a stand to change the culture at Coca-Cola.”
The dispute began Nov. 5 when Local 727 accused the company of delaying negotiations by cutting meetings shorts. The dispute made a turn for the worse Nov. 24 when the union alleged in numerous federal complaints the company bargained in bad faith, intimidated workers and unilaterally changed contract terms and working conditions. Coca-Cola denied the accusations.
“This tentative agreement is a strong step forward for hundreds of workers whose collective demand for respect has been heard loud and clear by their employer,” Coli added.
Local 727 represents 300 warehouse, production and transport workers at the two locations. Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta with facilities all across the country.
The Missouri Right-To-Work Fight Has Created Some Unlikely Allies
The Missouri Right-To-Work Fight Has Created Some Unlikely Allies
The Daily Caller
12/29/2015
3
Missouri unions are preparing to endorse a handful of Republicans who broke with party lines to stop a bill which would have outlawed forced union dues, according to reports Tuesday.
Labor unions were some of the most adamantly opposed to the Republican bill. The policy, known as right-to-work, would have outlawed mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Now the state chapter of the AFL-CIO is prepared to endorse the Republicans who helped defeat the bill by opposing their own party.
“We are starting to become blind to whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican,” Missouri AFL-CIO President Mike Louis told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It’s all about who is labor-friendly and who cares about the workers.”
The Republican bill was defeated Sept. 16 during a veto override vote. While supporters were able to get it passed, it was rejected not long after in June by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Without the handful of Republicans the veto override vote was short just 13 votes of the 109 needed.
“We will put boots on the ground to make sure these people win their races,” Jefferson County Labor Club President Bart Velasco told the Post-Dispatch. “They endured an awful lot of heat in their party.”
The Republicans who helped defeat the bill have since attended four union sponsored fundraising receptions. Those same Republicans, however, were already raking in union cash way before they decided to vote against the right-to-work measure. Most Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill received $186,365 last year from union-related campaign contributions, according to the Post-Dispatch. Unions also contributed about $73,000 to those Republicans in both 2012 and 2013.
Critics of the policy often claim unions are necessary for workplace fairness, better wages and benefits. Supporters, though, assert it simply provides workers a choice while promoting a business friendly environment. The bill wouldn’t have stopped workers from joining a union if they wanted to.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Seattle becomes first U.S. city to let Uber drivers unionize
Seattle may soon become the first city to let drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft collectively bargain over pay and working conditions (12/13 11p).
Greg Toppo and Elizabeth Weise, USATODAY 12:27 a.m. EST December 15, 2015
(Photo: KING5-Seattle)
Seattle on Monday became the first U.S. city to allow drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to unionize over pay and working conditions, a decision that will almost certainly be challenged in court and has already met resistance from the city's mayor.
The city council's vote was unanimous at 8-0. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said late Monday he does not plan to sign the bill, though it can still become law without his signature.
Under the new ordinance, companies would be required to give the city a list of its Seattle drivers. A nonprofit organization like a union would use the list to contact drivers and work to gain the support of a majority of a company’s drivers to be designated as their bargaining representative.
Uber and Lyft strongly opposed the ordinance and were expected to challenge it in court. David Plouffe, a former political strategist for President Obama who now serves as an adviser to Uber, visited Seattle earlier this month to promote the company and criticize the ordinance, The Seattle Times reported.
The company has also sued King County and the Seattle law firm Keller Rohrback in an attempt to block the county from releasing the number of licensed drivers the company has citywide.
Jessica Santillo, an Uber spokesperson, said the company "is creating new opportunities for many people to earn a better living on their own time and their own terms." She noted that half drive fewer than 10 hours a week, 70% have full-time or part-time work outside of Uber and 65% choose to vary the hours they drive week-to-week.
Lyft spokeswoman Paige Thelen said the ordinance "threatens the privacy of drivers, imposes substantial costs on passengers and the city and conflicts with longstanding federal law."
ANTITRUST LAWS
John Kirkwood, a professor of antitrust law at Seattle University’s law school, told USA TODAY the city council may have overstepped itself in Monday's vote. Only states, not cities, are allowed to “replace market competition with state regulation,” by allowing collective bargaining, he said.
The attempt to allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize would violate antitrust laws unless it satisfied that state action exemption, he said.
He also said states that have allowed collective bargaining are required to supervise both the process of that bargaining and the results. The Seattle ordinance includes language covering the bargaining process, but not the outcomes. There’s nothing in the ordinance about oversight of the possible impacts union bargaining might have on the general public, such as higher prices, Kirkwood said.
“That’s required,” he said.
Mayor Murray cited these concerns in an online statement after the vote. The ordinance includes "several flaws, especially related to the relatively unknown costs of administering the collective bargaining process and the burden of significant rulemaking the Council has placed on City staff," he wrote. "I said consistently during this debate that I support the right of workers to organize to create a fair and just workplace."
Seattle has led several U.S. cities on workers’ rights issues, such as gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 and requiring most employers to provide paid sick leave. Council member Mike O’Brien, who introduced the bill, said Monday's vote was the next step in economic justice for workers.
Many drivers in Seattle are immigrants who depend on full-time work, but some make less than minimum wage and lack basic worker rights such as sick leave and protection from retaliation, he said. Labor activists have complained that app-based services such as Uber and Lyft make it easier for companies to contract with independent workers and avoid paying minimum wages and benefits.
O’Brien’s proposal grew from organizing by taxi, Uber and Lyft drivers in Seattle and from advocacy by Teamsters Local 117, The Times reported. Some Uber and Lyft drivers have said that after expenses they make far less than the city’s minimum wage. While others have said they like the system as it works, at least 1,000 drivers have already organized as part of the App-Based Drivers Association, Reuters reported. Many have said they struggle to make a living, with some earning less than $3 per hour after expenses.
On its website, the association said drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft "have no say over their working conditions" and are "routinely and arbitrarily disconnected from their apps without warning or explanation." It also said driver pay has dropped radically as competitors slash their pricing in an effort to undercut competition. "Drivers make huge investments in their businesses but have no job security and no place to voice their concerns," it said.
In a statement, Teamsters Local Union 117 celebrated the vote, calling it "a turning point toward greater protections for workers in a changing economic landscape."
“By giving us rights, this law will help all of the drivers and also help our communities,” said Peter Kuel, an Uber driver and member of the leadership council of the App-Based Drivers Association.
Uber operates in more than 300 cities in 67 countries and has raised more than $10 billion from investors. Its war chest has helped fund legal and regulatory battles worldwide, as well as lobbying efforts at state and national levels.
Contributing: The Associated Press.
MORE STORIES
U.S. Rep. Diane Black: Bill would give voices back to employees
OPINION COLUMNISTS
Knoxville News Sentinel
12/27/15
Many hard-working Americans across Tennessee and the nation are suffering injustices on the job. Ironically, the perpetrators are the same organizations established to promote their interests — labor unions.
What's really troubling is that this country has seen unions morph from workers' champions into influence brokers whose high-living bosses care little about the rank and file, the people they are supposed to represent.
At fault are outdated labor statutes that free union leaders from accountability. Even violence by union organizers has been given a blind eye since 1935.
Tennesseans need look no further than the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga to see how some unions skirt our right-to-work laws, which we presciently enacted back in 1940.
There is little reason to believe that labor executives are any less deceptive in their handling of certification votes, the declaration of a strike or the use of members' dues. There is too much power and money at stake.
That is why the Employee Rights Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by my Republican colleague Tom Price of Georgia, is essential.
After watching organized labor devolve over 70 years, this legislation would finally give employees back their voices. It would start by criminalizing union threats and violence.
The changes couldn't come soon enough.
Most labor organizations in the U.S. were certified so long ago that less than 10 percent of today's unionized employees voted for them. The original supporters retired, but the current workforce is still beholden to an organization their predecessors chose.
This situation must be rectified, and the Employee Rights Act would do it.
The legislation would require a union recertification vote whenever half of a workforce turns over. The measure would empower employees to kick out unions that are doing more to ensure their executives remain in power than to advance objectives members care about.
The Employee Rights Act would also guarantee a secret ballot vote when employees are deciding whether to unionize. This would bring the end to "card checks" — public petitions that organizers have paired with fraud and intimidation to win union certification against employees' wishes.
So common sense are the eight provisions of the Employee Rights Act that they receive overwhelming, bipartisan support from unionized workers themselves. Despite this fact, not a single Democrat in the House supports the bill.
Should Hillary Clinton win in 2016, the Employee Rights Act will be dead on arrival at her desk, never to be signed into law.
My Democratic colleagues who back unions' continued dominance over employees are betraying their constituents — not for 30 silver coins, but for $30 million in Clinton campaign contributions and counting.
The Employee Rights Act would help here as well. It would bring political giving into line with employees' beliefs by requiring workers to opt in before a union can use their dues for politics. The 40 percent of unionized employees who vote Republican will surely welcome the chance to stop funding leftist candidates and causes.
No wonder liberals are worried.
It is long past time Congress prioritized the interests of individual American workers over the interests of the bigwig bosses at the powerful labor unions in Washington, D.C. As a co-sponsor of the Employee Rights Act, I am proud to add my voice to the chorus demanding that unions play fair and respect the rights of every worker — not just those who buy into their agenda.
Local Party changes leader; Chairman looking for candidates
By Samm Quinn - Gaily Reporter
Published 12/26/15
GREENFIELD — Local Democrats have a new leader who hopes to reignite the party in time for the 2016 election.
Randy Johnson has been tapped to replace Phil Hunt, who recently resigned as chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party.
Hunt, who plans to stay involved with the party, cited an increased workload as the reason behind his decision to step away from the leadership position he held since 2013.
Johnson, who has lived in Hancock County since June 2014, is retired from the United Steelworkers International Union. Though he’s fairly new to the county’s party, he’s been involved with the national Democratic Party and spoke at the Democratic National Committee in 2012.
He hopes to help strengthen the party and find quality Democrat candidates for the 2016 elections after no local Democrats ran for election this year. Right now, residents don’t see an active Democratic Party in Hancock County, and Johnson hopes to change that.
Johnson said he wants to see a two-party system thrive in Hancock County to give voters more choices. In order to do that, the party will need to find strong candidates to run against Republicans.
He’s already encouraging Democrats to consider running for county seats that are up for election in 2016, including treasurer, coroner, two county commissioner seats and three county council seats. Candidates can begin filing for election Jan. 6.
“Our time is short, but we’re going to do our best to fill positions,” he said. “It’s been my experience there is better accountability if you have a two-party system.”
Johnson, who is married to Rita and has four children and 10 grandchildren, said the party will meet monthly beginning in January and hopes to get more residents engaged in voting and the Democratic process.
Johnson spent most of his career working for labor unions and has helped unions settle labor disputes. Now, he’s a public speaker and consultant, speaking about labor issues, politics, jobs, taxes and the economy.
Hunt said because Johnson is retired and has a lot of energy he’ll be good for the party.
Hunt retired when he first took on the position but continued to work. Now his business has picked up quite a bit, and he’s not able to devote as much time as he’d like to the party.
“Hopefully, good things will happen for the party,” he said.
Judy Brown, a longtime Democrat, said the party and Johnson are eager to find Democrats who might be interested in taking a more active role in the party.
Rita and Randy Johnson make quite a team and are already heavily involved with the party, Brown said, so he believes he’s an excellent choice.
“He’s new to the area and willing to get out and get to know people. ... I think he’ll be an asset to us,” she said.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Giant labor union CWA backs Bernie Sanders for president
Originally published December 17, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., smiles as he stands in front of members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) in Washington on Dec. 17. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Thursday received his biggest labor endorsement yet — from the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America.
By Ben Brody
Bloomberg News (TNS)
WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Thursday received his biggest labor endorsement yet — from the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America (CWA).
The Vermont senator, a self-described Democratic socialist who has been lagging Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in union endorsements despite his populist campaign platform, said he “would have won a lot more national union support” if other national unions followed the same process as the CWA.
“What we are seeing is a lot of grass-roots support in union after union in this country, but that support has not necessarily trickled up to the leadership,” he said.
At an event where Sanders appeared with members of the union’s executive board, CWA President Chris Shelton said the decision to back Sanders was a reflection of strong support for him by the rank and file, expressed in a survey of the members.
Several thousand members voted “decisively” over the past three months to endorse the Vermont senator, Shelton said. The executive board followed that lead with a unanimous Thursday morning vote, Shelton said, because of Sanders’ stances on the financial sector, debt-free college, health care and “retirement security,” among other issues.
Shelton declined to comment on other unions’ endorsements of Clinton, which include those of AFSCME, the Laborers, and the Government Employees’ Union. Her support from labor groups represents the majority of the unionized workers in the United States.
Ben Brody
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Teachers union sues TPS over payroll problems
BY VANESSA McCRAY
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2015/12/15/Teachers-union-sues-TPS-over-payroll-problems.html#1fDtCfZET2kdQhDq.99
BLADE STAFF WRITER
The Blade
Published: Tuesday, 12/15/2015 - Updated: 5 hours ago
An ongoing payroll dispute at Toledo Public Schools led to a lawsuit filed today by the Toledo Federation of Teachers against the board of education.
The lawsuit, filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court and assigned to Judge Gene Zmuda, alleges that the school district’s payroll system, used to process payroll for teachers and paraprofessionals, has incurred numerous errors. Some federation members have not been paid for all the hours they’ve worked, have not been paid for wages earned during a pay period, and have been overpaid and had that amount “and more” withdrawn from future paychecks without notice, according to the eight-page suit.
The SunGuard system has been in use for payroll processing since the summer, the suit states. Labor unions, including the federation, have brought concerns to the school board repeatedly in recent months.
TPS Treasurer Ryan Stechschulte said the district has been working with SunGuard to correct the errors, work he said will continue with an aim to rectify the problems "as quickly as possible."
He added that the district is appreciative of the patience of employees.
He said the largest concentration of payroll mistakes affect those employees with supplemental and extra duty pay.
SunGuard has personnel on site in Toledo working with TPS' human resources department to address issues, he said.
The lawsuit states that the district “has failed to remedy the situation” involving various teachers, who were not paid all of their earned wages.
The federation is asking the court to find that the district violated state law and to require TPS to pay owed wages, damages, attorney fees and costs, as well as any other legal or equitable relief.
The president of the federation could not be reached immediately for comment.
Contact Vanessa McCray at: vmccray@theblade.com, 419-724-6065, or on Twitter @vanmccray.
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2015/12/15/Teachers-union-sues-TPS-over-payroll-problems.html#1fDtCfZET2kdQhDq.99
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Civil rights, religious groups upset over police union Trump endorsement
Civil rights and religious groups have slammed the decision by a northeastern police union to endorse controversial Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose comments on police brutality and calls to restrict U.S immigration for Muslims have sparked outrage across the political spectrum and among minority constituencies.
Rev. Jason Lydon was part of a group of clergy members who protested the event Thursday during which the New England Police Benevolent Association (NEPBA) announced their endorsement for Trump. Lydon, along with other clergy, kneeled down and prayed, blocking a hallway until police told them that they would be arrested if they continued.
Lydon said he protested to “highlight that Donald Trump is a symptom of a larger system of Islamophobia and white supremacy … and also giving credibility to so many people are responding to his Islamophobia and racism.” He added that there were around 200 protesters outside of the building where the endorsement event was being held.
Executive board members of the NEPBA, who attended a closed-door meeting to cast their votes Thursday, said that Trump’s comments about banning Muslims from entering the United States had come up briefly in their discussion, but that most of the conversation had centered on his support of police in what they perceive to be a national climate of hostility toward police officers. Trump has said that as president he would call for the death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer.
The endorsement angered members of Black Lives Matter, the activist group that burst onto the U.S. political scene to denounce perceived brutality and racial biases in policing amid a spate of police killings of black men over the last year.
Earlier this year, Trump supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester who had disrupted his event. Afterwards, the presidential candidate said that “maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
“We are not surprised at the NEBPA's endorsement of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny,” Black Lives Matter Cambridge said in an email to Al Jazeera. “We are only surprised by their honesty in offering such an endorsement. New England is a region rife with White male hatred and this endorsement brings that to light."
Muslim groups throughout New England were also dismayed by the police association’s endorsement of the candidate just a few days after Trump called for the ban on Muslims coming into the country.
Malik Khan, the president of the Islamic Center of Boston in Weyland, Massachusetts, wasn’t aware of the news when asked for a comment, but said: “To hear that the Benevolent Association has decided to support him is really sad."
“We’d want to ask obviously if this represents an endorsement just of a single issue from this organization, or if this this is a holistic endorsement which would encompass a Muslim ban in the U.S.” said Dr. John Robbins, the executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “This kind of endorsement would obviously be a great concern for the Muslim citizens within the jurisdiction of these officers who they’ve sworn to protect.”
With The Associated Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)