Construction, teachers unions win in Philadelphia’s soda tax tussle

By Evan Grossman 

June 20, 2016 

Philadelphia’s new soda tax was sold as a way to help kids, but trade and teachers unions — and city government — also stand to be big winners from the 1.5 cents-per-ounce tax approved last week.

The tax is expected to generate $91 million in the first year and up to $386 million over five years. About a third of the money will go into the city’s general fund, where it can be spent on anything.

Mayor Jim Kenney, who endorsed the tax after being elected last year, wants to spend the money on building community schools and refurbishing parks and recreation centers around the city. Jobs created by those projects are expected to be snatched up by members of building trades unions, which have been vocal supporters of the tax.

Political heavyweight John Dougherty, who is head of the influential Local 98 electricians union and the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, reportedly blasted opponents of the soda tax earlier this year.

According to reports, during a meeting in City Council chambers in May, Dougherty went “toe-to-toe” with Danny Grace, the head of Teamsters Local 830, which opposed the tax. Dougherty reportedly also warned against crossing Councilman Bobby Henon, who also backed a soda tax, when he said, “If you [expletive] with my boy, I’ll [expletive] with you.” 

Dougherty later told the Philadelphia Inquirer he didn’t have a “tussle” with the Teamsters boss and that he didn’t use foul language.

“I didn’t say ‘[expletive] with.’ I said,’’Look, you guys play with Henon, lose my number,’” Dougherty said.

The Teamsters were against the soda tax because the price bump is expected to eliminate 2,000 soda industry jobs, including transportation positions held by Teamsters.

The American Beverage Association also opposed to the tax, which it says is “regressive” and “unfairly singles out beverages — including low- and no-calorie choices.”

“The fact remains that these taxes are discriminatory and highly unpopular — not only with Philadelphians, but with all Americans,” the ABA said in a statement. “Similar tax proposals have been rejected 43 times across the country in the past eight years, including twice in Philadelphia.”

Kenney argues that Philly kids stand to be the biggest winners because the tax will open public pre-K programs to about 6,500 more children. Supporters of the tax say that two out of three children in the city live in households too poor to afford preschool.

According to a study conducted by the city this year, the annual cost of pre-K is between $14,000 and $15,000 per child. The city says it needs about $60 million a year to run the program to reach as many kids as Kenney hopes. Critics say that estimate is unrealistic.

Republican Councilman David Oh, who voted against the tax, said his staff found $180 million in over-allocations to state agencies that could have been used to fund pre-K and community schools. Without raising taxes, Oh said, his plan would have produced $26 million for universal preschool, $4.2 million for community schools and $12.5 million to rebuild parks and rec centers.

“We need good programs and we should all do our best to support the new administration whenever possible,” Oh said. “But we also need jobs, opportunities, new investment, and better fiscal accountability from our government to our citizens. Otherwise, we’ll end up with none of the above, but the citizens will pay the tab.”

Pre-K advocates such as Councilwoman Helen Gym and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, which supported her election last year, are also being touted as soda tax winners. The expansion of public pre-K programs and the creation of up to 25 community schools could mean more jobs for union teachers.

The PFT also campaigned hard to elect Kenney last year and has backed the mayor’s plan to create more community schools, which provide social services in addition to educational facilities within neighborhoods.

“The PFT has been in favor of Mayor Kenney’s sugary drink proposal since its inception,” PFT President Jerry Jordan said in a statement. “We look forward to engaging with Council and the Mayor to ensure the implementation of pre-K and Community Schools is as effective as possible.”

Trucking Industry, Unions Clash Over Driver Classification in New Jersey

By ROBBIE WHELAN

June 8, 2016

Port trucking companies back an Assembly bill that would make it easier to hire drivers as contractors. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters wants drivers classified as employees.

The trucking industry has won a round in an ongoing bout with labor unions over whether truck drivers at the East Coast’s busiest port are employees or independent contractors.

The New Jersey Assembly had been considering legislation that would have forced port trucking companies to use mainly employee drivers, and raised penalties for improperly hiring contractors. However, the Assembly’s transportation committee last month merged that bill with an industry-friendly measure that would keep the penalties but broaden the definition of independent drivers to include most port truckers.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which backed the original bill, has withdrawn its support. A vote before the full Assembly hasn’t been scheduled.

The Teamsters are leading efforts to organize drivers who haul loads from the docks to nearby rail yards and warehouses at the nation’s ports, including the 7,000 truckers operating at the busy terminals around New York Harbor. Employee classification has emerged as a key front, as most port drivers operate as independent contractors, who cannot be unionized.

In Los Angeles and Long Beach, the country’s two biggest ports, hundreds of drivers have sued claiming they were improperly hired as contractors. Some trucking companies have filed for bankruptcy protection or left California, citing the costs of settling driver lawsuits or the greater expense of hiring employee drivers. FedEx Corp. and Uber Technologies Inc. have settled with drivers as a group to end similar disputes.

“New Jersey’s been a long-running issue. It’s the country’s third largest port, and that’s their last big bastion of truckers who are not unionized,” said Curtis Whalen, executive director of the Intermodal Conference of the American Trucking Associations.

Unions have failed to make headway on the issue in New Jersey, where the bulk of the region’s port trucking takes place but labor laws favor the industry. In 2013, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a measure that would have stiffened penalties for misclassifying drivers.

“The key to this whole equation is enforcement,” said Fred Potter, head of the Teamsters’ port division. “Who is going to force companies to enforce labor practices? There isn’t really proper enforcement being done by the New Jersey Department of Labor.”

The new legislation allows trucking companies to claim drivers are contractors if they own their own business, own or lease their own truck or can accept jobs from multiple trucking companies. That would include the vast majority of drivers at the port.

“What we want to do is set up specific rules as to a guy who owns his own vehicle, licenses the truck, washes the truck. He’s an independent contractor,” said Tom Adamski, who runs a port truck depot in New Jersey and is a member of the intermodal council of the New Jersey Motor Truck Association, which lobbied against the Teamster-backed bill.

Sarah Leberstein, a senior staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, a labor advocacy group, said the industry-supported definition is “not just a loophole, it’s an enormous cavern for employers to walk through.”

The union-backed bill endorsed a standard that would classify more drivers as employees, and called for stricter enforcement of wage and benefit violations. For example, drivers who own their trucks would still be employees - and able to unionize - if they drove for companies that specified what time shipments needed to be picked up.

Teamsters pension crisis shows how unions add risks to workers

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth,

May 10, 2016

The Teamsters prefer a higher hourly salary than a robust retirement plan

The Teamsters’ Central States Pension Fund, a severely underfunded pension plan, applied to the Treasury Department for permission to cut benefits to pensioners under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.

The act, which passed with bipartisan support, allows multiemployer (union) pension plans to apply to the Treasury Department to temporarily or permanently cut benefits if the plan is projected to run out of money within the next 15 years.

On Friday, the Treasury Department denied the Central States fund’s request for benefit reductions, but warned that the plan remains dangerously insolvent.

In reaction to the decision, Teamsters General President Jimmy Hoffa said: “This decision means that there won’t be any cuts to retirees’ pensions this July or the foreseeable future.”

Unions have not been vigilant in negotiating contributions to pensions from employers, because their members prefer to get higher cash wages.

Hoffa is celebrating too soon. Pension reductions will not come in July, but they will in the future, as the Central States fund overhauls pension reforms to address Treasury official Kenneth Feinberg’s criticisms.

Multiemployer plans have the virtue of allowing employees to take their pension rights with them if they leave one employer in a group to work for another.

Although these plans were created with the best of intentions, they generally have lower levels of funding than do plans sponsored by private employers. Congress considers funds with less than 80% of needed assets to be in “endangered” status, and those with less than 65% to be in “critical” status.

The Labor Department lists critical and endangered plans on its Web site, which shows 174 union plans in “critical condition” and 50 in “critical and declining condition” (including the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund) for 2015.

Feinberg gave three reasons for denying the reductions in benefits for the Central States plan.

1. The proposed benefit reductions would not keep the plan from insolvency, as is required under the Kline-Miller Act. Specifically, Treasury determined that the plan assumed a too-high rate of return (7.5%) and assumed that new employees would start paying into the plan at a much younger age (32 years) than is realistic.

2. Cuts to pension benefits are not equitably distributed. On average, Central States workers and retirees would have incurred a 23% benefit cut, but many would have seen cuts up to 90%.

3. Notices sent to pension recipients informing them of benefit suspensions were not easily comprehensible. Feinberg gave the example of “a 98-word sentence that includes four critical terms (the definitions of which are not contained in the notices, but rather in cross-referenced documents that are not attached).”

The Treasury’s decision does not change the plan’s insolvency. Indeed, to deal with Feinberg’s objections, a future plan may require more cuts.

According to the plan’s annual funding notice, the plan was just 48% funded in 2014, the most recent year for which data are available. This means that it has only 48% of funds needed to pay current and future retirees. If a pension fund is below 65% funded, it qualifies as “critical status” according to federal pension law. A pension that is between 80% and 65% funded is termed “endangered.”

In 2011, the plan was at 59%, so even though the economy is improving, the financial conditions of the pension fund are deteriorating.

Some, such as the New York Times, suggest that the Teamsters Union lost control of the plan’s investment decisions in 1982 due to the union’s “ties to organized crime.” Others suggest that the fund’s insolvency is due to a lack of young workers in the unionized trucking industry. Currently, there are 5.3 inactive (retired) pension plan members for every active member.

Those statements may be true, but do not tell the whole story. The Board of Trustees of the Central States pension funds contains union representatives, and are responsible to recommend funding changes and plan amendments based on incoming financial information. The argument that the Teamsters do not control the management of the fund in a week-to-week sense is therefore irrelevant. The implicit claim that the decisions of the Teamsters, including the benefits and funding schedules, are less important than market performance is only part of the story. If a fund begins to fall behind because of market performance, the sponsors have a responsibility to take countervailing measures, by reducing promised benefits or increasing contributions, or both.

Unions have not been vigilant in negotiating contributions to pensions from employers, because their members prefer to get higher cash wages. When union officials return to their members with a substantial wage raise, representatives are praised and rewarded. But when officials tell members they have negotiated higher pension contributions but a smaller raise, the union is less popular.

Furthermore, Teamsters prefer to spend members’ dues on political contributions to add to their power base than on shoring up pensions. In the 2014 election cycle, the Teamsters Union spent $2.3 million on candidate contributions, 95% of which went to Democrats. The union also spent $4.2 million on lobbying during the 113th Congress.

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC), which guarantees pension plans like Central States, might not be able to save the fund. It has a lower cap on guarantees for multiemployer pensions than for traditional private pensions owned by a single employer. This is because the premiums paid to the PBGC are lower. The multiemployer program fund of the PBGC is projected to become insolvent in 2025.

Despite their rhetoric, unions do not guarantee their members better retirements — merely more risky ones. Union-negotiated pension schemes consistently maintain dangerously low ratios of assets to liabilities. Although unions may promise their members terrific benefits, they do not deliver. The Teamsters may be celebrating Kenneth Feinberg’s decision, but he has only postponed the inevitable.

Pilots’ unions to enter mediation with Atlas Air Worldwide

By Randy Woods

April 26, 2016

Unions representing pilots that fly for DHL-contracted carriers Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo have requested to begin mediation with Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (AAWW) via the National Mediation Board (NMB), stating that Atlas Air has “refused to engage in any further legally-mandated negotiations.” AAWW said they have strongly objected to such negotiations.

“Pilots are fed up with Atlas and AAWW’s game playing and backroom corporate maneuvering to try to deny us basic workplace protections like the much-needed time to rest between international flights,” said Captain Mike Griffith, an Atlas pilot and Communications Chairman of APA Teamsters Local 1224. “We believe the federal government intervening will make sure they work with us to come to a fair contract agreement that is up to cargo industry standards.”

The unions – The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters Airline Division and APA Teamsters Local 1224 – represent more than 1,300 pilots flying for DHL-contracted airlines. After approving the pilots’ request, the NMB assigned an airline labor mediator to assess the parties’ dispute and will determine how best to proceed with negotiations.

The unions' concerns stem from AAWW's recent acquisition of Southern Air Holdings, Inc. (SAI), which placed two additional carriers – Southern Air Inc. and Florida West International Airways – under AAWW's control. Atlas Air then requested that it pilots halt ongoing contract negotiations and merge their contracts with those held by the Southern Air pilots. According to the unions, such a move would have "a devastating impact" that could suppress wages and lower quality of life issues for pilots at Atlas Air and Polar Air Cargo.

According to a study conducted by Teamsters Local 1224, AAWW pilots are paid considerably less and work much longer hours than pilots who fly comparable routes for UPS or FedEx. Pilots at Atlas, Polar and Southern reported being forced to fly long hours with minimal rest time in between flights, leading to dangerous fatigue, the unions claim.

DHL owns 49 percent of AAWW’s Polar Air Cargo subsidiary and is estimated to account for more than 50 percent of Atlas Air’s business, the unions said. DHL is also the exclusive customer of AAWW’s newly acquired Southern Air, Inc. Teamsters Local 1224 raised questions regarding the influence DHL has on the business affairs of AAWW and SAI, and has asked the Department of Transportation to intervene to ensure that DHL is not violating federal aviation laws and regulations that prohibit interference with United States air carriers by foreign entities.

Duluth Labor Unions Endorse Simonson for Senate

Abc - WDIO-DT

4/17/2016

At the Duluth Central Labor Meeting on April 14, labor body delegates voted overwhelmingly to endorse Erik Simonson for State Senate. A press conference was held on Monday to make the announcement, which included representatives from the Minnesota Professional Firefighters, Teamsters Joint Council 32 and Education Minnesota.

The labor unions have been working with Rep. Simonson for four years, but many of the union leaders remember him from his days in the union. Rep. Simonson said their endorsement is very important to him.

"These men and women represent working families all across the Northland," Rep. Simonson said. "It's an honor to have their endorsement and support because it tells me they have trust in me and that we've worked well together."

Rep. Simsonson has served two terms in Minnesota's House of Representatives where he led the legislative effort to prevent the sale of synthetic drugs. He has also been endorsed by The DFL Veteran's Caucus, The DFL Feminist Caucus, The Sierra Club, OutFront Minnesota Action and Conservation Minnesota.

Posted December 5, 2015 - 9:22pm

CCSD support staff ousts ESEA in favor of Teamsters union

 

Larry Griffith, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speaks to supporters at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Supporters listen to Larry Griffith, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speak at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Supporters gather their things after listening to Larry Griffith, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speak at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Larry Griffith, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speaks to supporters at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Supporters listen to Larry Griffith, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speak at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Larry Griffith, center, the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 14, speaks to supporters at the Cashman Center after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

Ballots are loaded into a car after a vote that ousted the ESEA in favor of Teamsters Local 14 as the labor union representing CCSD support staff at the Cashman Center on Saturday, Dec. 05, 2015. Brett Le Blanc/Las Vegas Review-Journal Follow @bleblancphoto

image

By Neal Morton
Las Vegas Review-Journal

A decade-long fight to unseat the labor union that represents more than 11,000 bus drivers, custodians and support staff who work for the Clark County School District culminated Saturday in a landslide vote for Teamsters Local 14.

Claiming 81 percent of 5, 339 ballots cast in a runoff election, Teamsters leaders and supporters credited their victory to a change in rules that govern union elections. They also promised to represent all support staff workers, and not just those who voted to oust the Education Support Employees Association, or ESEA, as the labor group's bargaining agent.

"This is not an us versus them thing," said Kim Bucy, a Teamsters supporter who works as a secretary in the CCSD's Title I office.

"This has been going on for months on end, and people's feeling get hurt in something like this," she added. "It's going to take time to work together (but) it's such an amazing feeling that we did this and won — again."

Since 2002, the Teamsters have sought in multiple elections to oust the ESEA.

State rules, however, required a so-called supermajority in which one union seeking control needed 50 percent plus 1 of all total union membership to vote in its favor. But a state government entity that oversees public employers and their labor unions voted this year to change that 13-year-old policy and instead require only a simple majority of those who vote in the election.

ESEA President Doug McCain said the organization "absolutely" will challenge the results of Saturday's election before the Teamsters begin negotiating a new employment contract with the Clark County School Board.

"Our attorney probably will go back to his office and prepare that as quickly as he can," McCain said as Teamsters, celebrating in a nearby room at Cashman Center, cheered and applauded the results.

"The rules are the rules, and that's what we play by," he said.

— Contact Neal Morton at nmorton@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0279. Follow him: @nealtmorton

Truckers, unions mired in legal fight

Transfers at heart of suits, complaints

REBECCA S. GREEN | The Journal Gazette  

November 27, 2015 1:03 AM

In February, seven truck drivers were working for Speedway Redi Mix and members of 

Teamsters Union Local 414.

In March, those same seven truck drivers went to work for a sister company, 

Speedway Construction Products, which had a labor contract with the 

International Association of Machinists Local 2569. 

The drivers had better pay and benefits in the sister company and paid their dues to the 

Machinists’ union, withdrawing from the Teamsters, according to court documents.

It was a move that appeared to anger the Teamsters, which reacted by filing complaints 

with the National Labor Relations Board, timed in such as a way as it damaged a 

contract Speedway Redi Mix had with General Motors Co. for construction at the plant.

Now there are a pair of lawsuits, to go alongside the federal labor complaints, filed by 

the seven truck drivers against both unions, albeit with different allegations of 

wrongdoing.

This month, attorneys representing the truck drivers sued the Teamsters Union 

Local 414 in Allen Superior Court, alleging violation of the state’s right-to-work law, 

wage payment issues, criminal conversion and tortious interference.

No one is required to be a member of a union under federal law, said 

Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, the Willard and Margaret Carr professor of labor 

and employment law at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law.

But unions can represent workers in a specific bargaining unit whether they are 

members or not, and for years those workers paid security fees to cover work 

the unions did on their behalf.

Until right-to-work laws passed, that is, Dau-Schmidt said.

The drivers allege in their lawsuit against the Teamsters that the actions of the 

union effectively violated their state right-to-work rights, forcing them back to 

Speedway Redi Mix and into the Teamsters union.

Indianapolis labor lawyer Geoff Lohman represents the Teamsters in both the 

lawsuit and in the complaints the union filed against the Speedway companies 

with the National Labor Relations Board.

Lohman said the Teamsters contended Speedway Redi Mix violated the 

National Labor Relations Act when it transferred the employees and into a 

different union. A lot of the work performed by the Teamsters in Speedway Redi Mix 

went into the sister company, as well, Lohman said.

Speedway did not admit any wrongdoing in the federal labor complaints but settled

the issue.

With the settlement came an agreement to transfer the drivers back to 

Speedway Redi Mix and the Teamsters.

As part of that settlement, the company paid money into the Teamsters’ 

401(k) savings plan, as well as interest and union dues, money that had 

not been paid while the men were members of 

the International Association of Machinists.

This week, the truck drivers sued the International Association of Machinists, 

Local 2569 and Speedway Construction Products in federal court, 

alleging the company terminated them without cause when the Teamsters 

applied pressure. The drivers were transferred back to 

Speedway Redi Mix where their pay and benefits were lower than they had been 

at the sister company.

Dau-Schmidt said the lawsuit against Speedway Redi Mix and the Teamsters will 

probably turn on whether the members have really resigned their membership 

in the Teamsters and revoked the collection of union dues and contributions 

from their paychecks. 

If the workers had not done so, the Teamsters will have to return the money, he said.

In the lawsuit against the Machinist union and Speedway Construction Products, 

the issue is whether the employer owed the members any contractual obligation to 

retain their work in Speedway Construction Products rather than 

Speedway Redi Mix, Dau-Schmidt said. 

It must also be decided whether the Machinists union treated the workers arbitrarily 

or discriminatingly, Dau-Schmidt said.  

rgreen@jg.net