Editorial: Decline of unions isn't good news for Wisconsin

01/30/2016

Cap Times editorial

Madison.com

There undoubtedly was some high-fiving among Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators and their corporate campaign contributors earlier this week over the news that union membership has plummeted in Wisconsin over the past two years and is now far below the national average.

That may be good news for plutocrats, but it's terrible news for working people and Wisconsin's middle class.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that just 8.3 percent of workers in the state now belong to a union, which is down from 11.7 percent in 2014. Nationwide roughly 11.1 percent of working people belong to an organized labor union.

The big drop in union membership — estimated to be roughly 83,000 workers in little more than year — helps explain why Wisconsin's economic recovery continues to trail the rest of the country. The figures are even more stark when compared to 2010, the year Scott Walker was first elected governor. More than 14 percent of Wisconsin workers belonged to unions then.

Unions may not be the be-all and end-all, but they've historically strengthened the country's middle class, winning wage hikes and benefits for workers so they could support their families and share in the nation's wealth, and making sure employers provided safe and healthy workplaces. Unions never did represent a majority of American workers, but they provided the benchmarks that nonunion employers used to keep their workers happy so they wouldn't be tempted to form unions themselves.

It's not coincidental that the biggest gains in the middle class occurred during the heyday of unions. And it's also not coincidental that the middle class has suffered in recent years as union membership has eroded. The result has been an alarming increase in the gap between the rich and poor.

That's been a particular problem here in Wisconsin. A Pew Charitable Trust report from last March showed Wisconsin with the largest decline among the 50 states in the number of middle class families. In 2000, 54.6 percent of Wisconsin families fell into the category of middle class, but that was down to 48.9 percent in 2013. The real median household income in our state had fallen 14.7 percent during that time.

While the drop in union membership has coincided with lower wages and fewer benefits, the upper classes have done well.

So we shouldn't be happy that unions have taken big hits as a result of the Republicans' attacks on public employees and teachers and the enactment of a right-to-work law, which hampers private unions. 

No, we should be sad for the economic health of Wisconsin and worried about its future.

‘Most workers are employees,’ says US Department of Labor

Analysis: New guidance clarifies the exceptional, limited nature of independent contractor status

July 15, 2015 6:00PM ET

by E. Tammy Kim @etammykim

The federal Department of Labor has signaled its concern that workers are being unlawfully excluded from key protections on the job. On Wednesday, the agency’s wage-and-hour division released a 15-page document clarifying who should be considered an “independent contractor” versus an “employee.” It was widely read as addressing the gig-based “sharing economy” and sharp anxieties over labor, income inequality and the changing nature of work.

Using concrete examples from nursing, construction, publishing and cleaning, the guidance clarifies that it’s the “economic realities” of one’s work that matter, “not the label an employer gives it” or what’s listed on a 1099 tax form for non-employees. The legal factors seem technical but are fairly commonsensical: Does the worker play a key role in the employer’s business? Is the work entrepreneurial? Does the employer control what she does?

Since the early 20th century, what are generally assumed to be basic workplace rights — a minimum wage, social security, unemployment and workers’ compensation — have depended on having status as an employee. This system arose in tandem with large corporations that hired people for life, sometimes generation after generation. As exemplars of welfare capitalism, firms like Kodak and General Electric paid steady wages, provided time off, health care and pensions, and created a quasi-familial environment for workers.

These days, people hold multiple jobs over a lifetime, often concurrently, a trend that began in the 1970s, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unlike those who started out 40 years ago, workers today are increasingly hired for short-term, part-time gigs lacking benefits or support. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the Department of Labor guidance, estimates that 10.3 million workers [PDF], or 7.4 percent of the workforce, are bona fide independent contractors. 

Alanda Fewins, a limousine driver in Houston, is, like most of her peers, considered an independent contractor. In her last job, some aspects were more within her control than others. She made her own hours and chose her own routes, but the car she worked in belonged to her “boss,” who took 40 cents of every dollar she earned.

“I drove his car, I [felt like] his employee, but I’ve always been treated as an independent contractor,” she said. This feeling intensified when Uber came to town, thinning out the business for veteran drivers. “My boss said, ‘Go drive here, do this, do that,’ but I was still an independent contractor.”

While promising to transform an outdated taxi industry, the app-based car service Uber has retained a key feature of that model: drivers’ independent-contractor status. Drivers in California, Florida and other states, however, have, with some success, claimed that they are in fact employees entitled to overtime pay and reimbursement for job-related expenses. Misclassification is rampant, according to the AFL-CIO labor federation and state labor-enforcement agencies. Business associations, on the other hand, see independent contracting as essential to the new, flexible economy.

The Department of Labor guidance does not mention any company by name, and steers clear of illustrations from the vehicle-for-hire business. But several examples speak directly to workers like Fewins — allegedly “independent contractors” who are nevertheless screened, trained, paid and placed into jobs by their bosses.

“In sum,” the document states, “most workers are employees.”

Lyft settles Ca. driver lawsuit over employment status

Lyft to settle a proposed lawsuit by giving drivers workplace protections without classifying them as employees

January 27, 2016 3:40AM ET

Ride-hailing service Lyft has agreed to settle a proposed class action lawsuit in California by giving drivers additional workplace protections but without classifying them as employees, removing a major threat to its business model.

The settlement agreement, filed late on Tuesday in San Francisco federal court, provides for Lyft to pay $12.25 million, as well as give drivers notice if they are to be deactivated from the platform and other benefits.

Lyft and larger rival Uber face separate lawsuits brought on behalf of drivers who contend they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria would have to approve the deal. A hearing on preliminary approval is currently scheduled for February 18 in San Francisco.

The cases have been closely followed because a determination that the workers are employees instead of contractors could affect the valuations for other startups that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

While the deal will involve some costs for Lyft, classifying drivers as employees would have been much more expensive and complicated, said Jan Dawson, chief analyst of Jackdaw Research.

"It looks like Lyft got off fairly lightly here," Dawson said.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney for the drivers, acknowledged that the settlement does not achieve a reclassification of drivers as employees, but said the benefits are still significant.

Unlike a separate lawsuit against Uber, which has been certified as a class action, Liss-Riordan said Lyft's arbitration agreement with its drivers would have made it difficult for Lyft drivers to similarly sue as a group.

Additionally, Liss-Riordan said her firm receives many more complaints from Uber drivers about issues with their pay, and about being deactivated from the platform.

"We have not been hearing so many concerns from Lyft drivers, which leads us to believe that Lyft is treating its drivers with more respect than Uber is treating its drivers," Liss-Riordan said.

Uber representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. Uber is scheduled for a June trial in San Francisco on whether its drivers are employees or contractors.

As part of the settlement, Lyft has agreed that it can only deactivate drivers for specific reasons, like low passenger ratings. Drivers will be given an opportunity to address those issues before they are deactivated, according to the court filing.

Lyft also agreed to pay the arbitration expenses for any driver who wants to challenge their deactivation or disputes over compensation.

Lyft general counsel Kristin Sverchek said the company is pleased to resolve the lawsuit on terms that "preserve the flexibility of drivers to control when, where, and for how long they drive on the platform."

Reuters

Key Unions Campaigning Hard to Push Bernie Victory in Iowa

Unions hope to inspire high turnout at Iowa caucuses.

By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet

January 25, 2016

Though only 10 percent of Iowa’s workforce are union members, local shops from nationwide unions that have endorsed Bernie Sanders for president are hoping to sway other working-class voters who will attend next Monday’s Iowa caucuses.

While Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by more national unions than Sanders has, LaborRadio.org has noted that Sanders’ supporters in Iowa are unusually energized—including from unions that haven’t formally endorsed a presidential candidate.

“Unions like CWA [Communication Workers of America] and the United Postal Workers, which have endorsed Bernie, are… getting out the labor vote,” says the report. But “some unions, like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, have chosen not to endorse a candidate yet. Mike Olson serves as registrar for IBEW Local 405. He notes that among his members... 'Bernie Sanders seems to be getting their support.’”

That observation is not unique. Last fall, the Des Moines Register reported that both Sanders and Martin O’Malley were connecting with more union members than Clinton, quoting Ken Sagar, president of the AFL-CIO-affiliated Iowa Federation of Labor. “I think Secretary Clinton has a job before her to fire up the troops, so to speak,” he said.

On Tuesday morning, Sanders will appear at CWA headquarters in Des Moines for a “Labor Meeting with Bernie Sanders” and then participate in “caucus training” events with other unions that will include a “mock caucus.” That goes byond traditional union phone banking and get-out-the-vote efforts.

National Nurses United sent its bright red political tour bus to Iowa emblazoned with “Nurses Say Bernie for President” on its side, and has been holding organizing events with speakers like well-known commentator Jim Hightower and Chris Shelton, CWA’s national union president, “to remind voters of reasons why Sen. Bernie Sanders best reflects the values of nurses, workers, and community residents.”

Speaking at one rally, NNU co-president Jean Ross said endorsing Sanders was “very easy for us. Our values of caring, compassion and community are his values.” She then touted the latest news from the campaign, saying his “Medicare for all plan” was achievable. 

The Postal Workers’ union leaders in Iowa sent a letter to all members urging them to caucus and saying why they “encouraged” backing Sanders. “When we judge candidates for what they do—not by what they say and not by their labels—Senator Bernie Sanders stands head and shoulders above any other,” they wrote.

They said Sanders has fought to keep local post offices open, restore overnight delivery, oppose postal service privatization and many other issues important to union members.

“Bernie has a strong record of standing with workers on picket lines, fighting for a $15 per hour minimum wage, endorsing free public college tuition, advocating for veterans benefits, defending Social Security, promoting ‘Medicare for All,’ and opposing rotten trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP),” they wrote last week. 

While Clinton has more nationwide union endorsements, her supporters tend to be more labor leaders and officials and fewer rank-and-file members who are drawn to 

Sanders’ passion, the Des Moines Register reported.

The Sanders campaign is hoping that difference will help lead to a very high turnout on next Monday’s caucuses, where they hope to echo Barack Obama’s 2008 surprise victory over Clinton that was propelled by record-setting participation.  

Students, faculty fight for unions on Catholic campuses

Manya Brachear PashmanContact Reporter Chicago Tribune

01/26/2016

Just a day before nontenured faculty members at Loyola University of Chicago cast final ballots on whether to unionize, students at the Roman Catholic school faced a conduct hearing Monday after demonstrating their support for dining hall workers trying to negotiate a new union contract.

Lillian Osborne, 22, who hopes to graduate in May, said she and other students could face probation or suspension for a Nov. 20 demonstration that started on a lawn and ended inside a dining hall, where students confronted a supervisor during business hours to express their solidarity with employees. After explaining their rationale to a manager for Aramark, the food service company negotiating with workers, students cheered and peacefully disbanded, Osborne said.

Loyola said it did not disapprove of the students' demonstration or its subject matter, but questioned the disruption the protest might have caused. The students said the administration expects to issue its decision later this week.

"As a Jesuit, Catholic university, we strongly believe in, and welcome, debate and differing views on campus," said Kristin Trehearne Lane, a university spokeswoman. "We support students who express their views through respectful and responsible means."

But Osborne said the administration's decision to try the students after receiving a complaint from the Aramark supervisor raises questions about the administration's rationale and sincerity.

"We can see in the complaint letter written by the Aramark manager who filed the charge against us — he said the union and workers misled students and we should be re-educated on the issues," Osborne said. "That gives us a lot of perspective on what this is really about."

The controversy comes amid a heated debate between the school's administration and its nontenured faculty, who wrap up a secret ballot Tuesday on whether to organize a union. Students say they are simply acting out the Jesuit values they learned at Loyola and echoing Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich, who delivered a passionate defense of the labor movement in a speech in September to the Chicago Federation of Labor.

"I have come today to tell Chicago's workers, the Catholic Church is with you; Pope Francis is with you; I am with you," he said.

When pressed at the time on whether he would direct Chicago-area Catholic universities to support unions on their campuses, Cupich said he didn't have the authority to tell them what to do.

"Nationally this is a discussion going on with regard to adjunct faculty members across universities, whether Catholic or whatever," he said. "As a Catholic bishop I have absolutely no involvement or control over hiring policies and labor policies of any of the Catholic (higher education) institutions."

But the argument made by Loyola and St. Xavier University, a Catholic university with campuses in Chicago and Orland Park, differs from secular universities. Both schools have argued that their Catholic identity should bar the National Labor Relations Board from helping faculty organize a union and push for a collective bargaining agreement. In rulings last year, the NLRB disagreed, saying it did have the right to intervene at Loyola and other religious schools. The issue of whether those rulings apply to St. Xavier is still pending and Loyola still could appeal.

In a video posted on the university's website earlier this month, Loyola's interim president John Pelissero said his opposition to a faculty union does not contradict church teachings. He believes the Service Employees International Union is not the right union to represent teachers. The best way to resolve issues is to collaborate without a third party, he said.

"Catholic social teaching recognizes the significant contribution that unions have made related to workers' rights," Pelissero said. "But it does not suggest unions as the only means to achieve our goals."

Matt Hoffmann, a longtime adjunct instructor who earned his Ph.D. at Loyola, said calling the union a third party is a misleading tactic.

"The bargaining team is going to be made up of faculty and we're going to do it in a democratic manner," he said. "We are the union."

Votes in the faculty election will be tabulated Wednesday.

Since the contract with dining hall workers expired Aug. 31, the workers' union, Unite Here Local 1, has unsuccessfully demanded higher wages, access to health care and protection for immigrant workers such as language accommodations and time off for immigration proceedings.

According to the union, Aramark employees on many other college campuses have access to health care, but not at Loyola.

Peter Kirstein, a labor history professor at St. Xavier, said more Catholic schools are finding that church teachings are expensive to uphold. In many cases, such as food services, schools have outsourced the labor and, therefore, 

the collective bargaining responsibilities. Even so, Kirstein said, administrators should recognize their moral obligation to require that companies provide health care and a living wage.

"Universities need to have less fear about justice," he said. "Workers who want to organize in a union — they're not selfish. They're not radical. They're poor and people don't want to be poor."

Dan Abraham, organizing director for Loyola's dining hall workers, said he has seen more college students in general step up to support workplace justice and union contract negotiations on their campuses. Students at Catholic schools often justify their solidarity in the values of the very institution that's challenging them.

"That overall is a positive for us," Abraham said. "There's nothing like having the pope behind you."

MSD Board reinstates LIUNA as workers’ union, tentatively approves labor contract

By JOE SONKA | 

January 25, 2016 2:40 pm

The board of the Metropolitan Sewer District voted on Monday to end its suspension of LIUNA Local 576 as the recognized collective bargaining unit for roughly 150 of MSD’s workers, then gave tentative approval to the terms of a labor contract, which could soon end the protracted and heated contract dispute that has dragged on for over three years.

The motion to do both was approved by a 5-to-3 vote, with board chair Cyndi Caudil, vice chair Dan Arbough, Sujata Chugh, JT Sims and Andrew Bailey voting yes. The three no votes were from board members John Phelps, Joyce Horton Mott and Yvonne Wells-Hatfield.

The labor contract now will be sent to LIUNA, whose members will vote on whether to ratify and send it back to the MSD board for final approval.

After the vote, Caudill spoke about the breakthrough in the contract negotiations, noting that several new members of the board allowed them to take a “fresh look” at the contract.

“The board is proud of the work of our employees, and I’m pleased that we’re able to move forward with this new contract,” said Caudill. “In the time that we last considered this contract, we’ve added several new board members and taken a fresh look at the terms. We are appreciative of the patience of the employees who remain committed to their work as we’ve gone through this process.”

MSD’s leadership has changed dramatically over the past year, with a new board chair and vice chair, as well as new executive director Tony Parrott taking over for Greg Heitzman after his retirement last fall. Former board member Lonnie Calvert publicly criticized the reluctance of the board to approve contract conditions in the fall of 2014, and former board chair James Craig blamed the impasse on its former vice chair Tom Austin, whom he viewed as “anti-union” and criticized for calling union employees “terrorists” and “animals.” Austin would later resign over those comments.

LIUNA also played hardball tactics with the board and Heitzman over those years, using mailers and television ads to criticize the refusal of the board and MSD’s executive director to agree to its terms. The board stripped its recognition of LIUNA in late 2014, and despite an opinion by then-Attorney General Jack Conway agreeing with two of the union’s key points in the dispute, the negotiations remained at an impasse throughout 2015.

MSD has not yet released the details of the contract terms, but LIUNA Local 576 issued a statement to Insider Louisville praising the board, Parrot, and other local unions who championed their cause.

“On behalf of LIUNA Local 576, we want to thank the MSD board for voting in the contract for CMF workers,” said Lawrence Winburn Sr., LIUNA’s business manager. “We send a special thanks to the new MSD director Tony Parrott for championing the contract. Also a special thanks to all the unions and local organization and activists that have supported the workers and 576 for a contract. And a special thanks to Dave Suetholz of Kircher, Suetholz & Associates PSC (LIUNA’s legal counsel).”

After the vote, Caudill added that after considering the input of counsel and the attorney general, the board “has now increased comfort level with the contract as a whole. We’ve come to understand the terms to be contractual issues and not statutory issues, so our board is able to accept this contract. I’m confident that this contract will serve our employees and the ratepayers who will benefit from their work.”

Though three board members voted against today’s motion, the MSD board also proposed a new policy on Monday stating that “Once the board has acted, all board members are expected to support the decision of the board. Board members recognize their duty of loyalty to MSD and to the board, and agree that, outside the boardroom, they will support the letter and spirit of board decisions when in contact with other parties.”

Ruling forthcoming on grad unions

FINNEGAN SCHICK & VICTOR WANG JAN 25, 2016

STAFF REPORTERS

Yale graduate students seeking unionization may look with interest and expectation at two cases currently before the National Labor Relations Board whose rulings could upend decades of labor law precedent surrounding graduate student employment.

On Dec. 16, the American Council on Education — a higher-education organization with around 1,700 members, including Yale — weighed in on a pending NLRB court case between The New School, a university in New York City, and its student employees. In a friend-of-the-court brief — a document filed by an interested party that is not actually involved in the suit — the council argued that graduate students should not be treated as employees, but rather as students. 

The New School case, along with a similar case at Columbia University, could determine the fate of Yale’s Graduate Employees and Students Organization, a group of graduate students formed in 1990 that has held four demonstrations in the past 18 months while attempting to form a union and obtain bargaining power in its negotiations with the University. The New School and Columbia cases were filed with the NLRB in December 2014, and the NLRB is expected to make a decision by mid-March or early April of this year.

The New School case has the potential to overturn a 2004 NLRB decision at Brown University in which the board decided that Brown’s graduate students did not meet the NLRB’s definition of employee in the National Labor Relations Act and thus could not unionize. If the Brown decision were overturned, Yale — which has historically opposed graduate student unionization — and other private universities would be affected by the ruling, said Jonathan Clune ’74 LAW ’79, senior associate general counsel at Yale’s Office of General Counsel.

“The faculty supervising the [teaching assistants] in courses … would become the supervisors of those students. So the NLRB would look at that [relationship] as a supervisor-employee relationship,” Clune said. “For labor-law purposes, graduate students who are working [would] be treated as employees for those purposes, for that aspect of their work.”

The ACE’s brief argues that the Brown case was correctly decided and that graduate students’ relationship with a university is fundamentally one of “student-teacher,” not “master-servant.” The brief further states that teaching and research assignments cannot be used for collective-bargaining purposes without infringing upon the “predominantly academic character” of the graduate student-university relationship.

“Such a reversal will adversely impact fundamental, core aspects of the manner in which higher-education institutions across the country structure and deliver graduate education,” the brief continues. “It will intrude unnecessarily upon academic freedom and the relationship among our nation’s universities, professors and their graduate students.”

Yale’s administration worries that such changes could hurt Yale academically. Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Tamar Gendler said Yale shares the same concerns voiced in the ACE brief. Gendler was adamant that the teacher-student relationship is of central importance to Yale’s academic mission, and voiced concern over the future of graduate student-faculty interactions at Yale in the event of a pro-union NLRB ruling.

“I am concerned that this relationship would become less productive and rewarding under a formal collective-bargaining regime in which professors would be ‘supervisors’ and their graduate students ‘employees,’” Gendler said, adding that Yale administrators welcome “a full, robust debate about graduate-student unionization on the Yale campus.”

The NLRB could decide any number of ways, and lawyers involved with the case said there is no way of anticipating the board’s eventual ruling. The NLRB, whose five governing members are appointed by the president of the United States, has been known to swing pro-union during Democratic presidencies and align with corporations during Republican ones. The Brown case was decided after George W. Bush ’68 appointed right-leaning members to the NLRB, but the New School and Columbia cases come after Barack Obama has appointed several members more sympathetic to unions. Vice President and General Counsel of the ACE Peter McDonough said the court may either write decisions for both the Columbia and New School cases, or write a substantive decision in one case and simply refer to it in resolving the other one.

Furthermore, McDonough said, the NLRB must contend with a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving graduate students at Yeshiva University. The Supreme Court said that corporate and business workplace environments differ fundamentally from the academic world, in which the distinctions between graduate students’ responsibilities are less clearly defined.

“In the NLRB’s decision in Brown, the board said that the relationship between the graduate students’ assisting [through teaching], and pursuing a Ph.D., are inextricably linked,” McDonough said.

While labor laws may define employment one way, other definitions, like those for tax purposes, view employment in a different light, Clune said. As a result, graduate students do not always fit smoothly into a single definition of employment.

GESO Chair Aaron Greenberg GRD ’18 did not directly answer questions about the New School case, but said that over 70,000 graduate teachers and researchers are already in unions at public universities and that GESO is part of a push to bring unions to private universities like Yale.

There are approximately 3,000 graduate students at both Yale and at Columbia.

$25K In Gift Cards Plus 6 Other Ways Unions Abuse Dues

CONNOR D. WOLF

Reporter

1:11 PM 01/23/2016

Federal investigators regularly uncover instances of unions abusing their funds, from thousands of dollars worth of small purchases to dog walking.

The Department of Labor is tasked with investigating instances of questionable spending from labor organizations. 

The Office of Labor-Management Standards is the agency within the department which conducts the audits and investigations. Investigations have uncovered many different forms of abuse and questionable purchases over the last couple of years. 

These are just some of the ways unions have been found to misspend member replenished funds.

1. Unauthorized Flowers And The Makings Of A Fine Date

Labor unions are required to keep thorough records of financial transactions. Detailed records allow federal officials and members to hold union officers accountable. Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 2275, though, was found to have inadequately tracked credit card expenses when union officers bought dinners, flowers and hotel rooms. 

Additionally the union did not include a written explanation for the purchases. The audit was unable to determine if the purchases involved any official union business or were a result of financial malfeasance.

2. This Union Likes Walking Dogs

Part-Time Faculty Association of Columbia (P-FAC) is a union representing part-time school faculty in Chicago. The city has become a stronghold for education based unions. The part-time union used its funds for a wide range of questionable purchases including $8,838 in dependent care related to dog walking services.

The questionable transactions could have resulted in $100,000 in fines or even imprisonment. Federal investigators decided not implement any penalties after the union promised to do better next time.

3. Union Funds As A Personal Piggy Bank

Internal union policies that allow officers to borrow funds for personal purchases are not technically illegal. It does, though, leaves the door open for fraud and abuse. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1764 was not found to have abused its borrowing policy since officers were shown to have returned what they took. Nevertheless, federal officials highly encouraged the union to end the practice.

4. $25,000 Is A Whole Lot Of Gift Cards

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the largest national trade union of public employees. It represents 1.3 million members from the federal government to state agencies. The Michigan chapter of the union, though, went a bit overboard with gift cards.

The local chapter spent $25,000 on gift cards alone with some totaling as much as $500. Local officers did not get the purchases authorized by members which is required by the union bylaws for expenditures exceeding $500. Federal officials again let the purchases slide based only on the assurance officers would not do it again.

5. Good Christians That Love The Troops

CWA Local 84999 was also found to have improperly reported how it spends funds. The union incurred $7,500 worth of misreported small expenses like pens and calendars. Also among the expenses were bibles and various goods to soldiers.

6. Going Everywhere On A Dues Fueled Trip

Travel is an impact part of running an organization and unions are no exception. To mitigate fraud and abuse, though, unions are required to report their travel related expenses. P-FAC instead reimbursed $2,300 worth of parking, taxis, trains and other forms of transportation without retaining adequate documentation to support the payments.

7. Mailmen Really Like Magazine Subscriptions

The National Association of Letter Carriers spent $2,700 on magazine subscriptions alone before giving them away at a membership meeting in December 2014. Federal investigators warned the union failed to supply the proper supporting documentation to justify the expense. The only official document available from the purchase was the initial order form.

NLRB: Walmart strikes lawful, reinstate workers

Retailer ordered to reinstate 16 workers; labor group Making Change at Walmart, called NLRB decision 'a huge victory'

January 21, 2016 11:20PM ET

Walmart Stores Inc. unlawfully retaliated against workers who participated in strikes in 2013 and must offer to reinstate 16 dismissed employees, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled on Thursday.

Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter said in a ruling posted on the board's website that the U.S. retailer violated labor law by "disciplining or discharging several associates because they were absent from work while on strike."

The ruling was hailed by one labor group as a "huge victory" for employees, although Walmart indicated it would likely appeal the decision to the labor agency's board in Washington, and pointed to its recent efforts to improve worker benefits and raise pay.

"We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's recommended findings and we will pursue all of our options to defend the company because we believe our actions were legal and justified," Walmart spokesman Kory Lundberg said.

Carter was ruling on a complaint filed by the NLRB on behalf of a union-backed worker group, OUR Walmart, in 2014. Most of the allegations related to a coordinated set of strikes collectively referred to the "Ride for Respect" because they involved traveling by bus to the company's headquarters in Arkansas for protests at its shareholders' meeting in June 2013.

Walmart had argued that it was lawful to discipline workers with unexcused absences to participate in the protests because the strikes constituted "intermittent work stoppages" not protected under labor law.

But the judge found the "Ride for Respect" differed materially from other previous work stoppages not protected by law because, among other factors, it was not a brief strike — meaning the risk for workers was higher — and because it was not scheduled close in time with other strikes.

Carter ordered Walmart to offer 16 former workers their previous jobs and make them "whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them."

Walmart was also ordered to hold a meeting in more than two dozen stores to inform workers of their rights to organize under U.S. labor law.

Jessica Levin, spokeswoman for labor group Making Change at Walmart, which is backed by the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), described the ruling as a "huge victory" for the dismissed workers as well as "Walmart workers everywhere."

It was unclear what impact, if any, the decision would have on the efforts by Making Change at Walmart and other groups to pressure Walmart on wages and benefits. The UFCW has tried for years to organize Walmart workers and the hurdles remain high.

The ruling comes a day after Walmart announced that it was raising wages for 1.2 million U.S. workers in 2016 as part of a $2.7 billion effort over two years on wages and training.

Last week the retailer announced that it would be closing 269 stores, including 154 in the United States at the end of January.

Reuters