California unions crush bid to open their books

By William La Jeunesse 

May 05, 2016 

California’s public employee unions used their muscle this week to fight back a legislative bid to open their books, killing in committee a bill that would force them to post online how dues are spent -- and a second bill requiring a union vote every two years.

"These members want to belong to a union. They want to be represented by a union. They just want to know where their money's at,” said bill sponsor Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, a Republican.

The two bills went down Wednesday on a party-line vote, after dozens of union members came out against the legislation.

"The whole issue is not so much about these bills, but it's about right-wing billionaires fighting for their interest and fighting to stymie the rights of the union," testified Theresa Rutherford, of SEIU local 1021.

The fight, though, actually began with an internal complaint from a union member, five years ago.

At the time, Mariam Noujaim, a long-time state employee, noticed a crossing guard at the State Capitol on an empty street that already had a tunnel built under it for pedestrians. A self-described cheapskate, Noujaim sensed a waste of money.

She later learned it was a make-work job provided to her union, the Service Employees International Union or SEIU. She demanded to see their books. They refused. She sued – and later got involved with the legislation.

"This is my case," said Noujaim, an Egyptian immigrant. "Show me the money."

She and others are vowing to keep fighting for transparency and accountability, despite this week’s legislative loss.

SEIU is the state's second-largest public employee union with some 700,000 members statewide. In her lawsuit, Noujaim won but was only given access to the union's $60 million budget for a few hours and was not allowed to make copies or bring an accountant.

"Numbers are like a bikini. What they reveal is interesting. What they hide is vital," said attorney Mark Goudy. Her attorney also helped Noujaim contact Grove, who agreed to sponsor the ill-fated legislation.

"If they want to know why there's a $50,000 credit card bill and what's on it, why can't they know?" Noujaim asked.

One of the bills would have required public-employee unions to post detailed, itemized budgets online and to respond to members' written requests for more information. The second bill would have compelled public unions to hold elections every two years.

Grove called it necessary since fewer than 10 percent of workers today ever actually voted for the union currently representing them, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Nevertheless, some 30 union leaders showed up to attack the bills.

"We already comply with the law, we do what the law asks," SEIU lobbyist Randy Cheek testified. "We are totally open and transparent."

Rutherford, of SEIU local 1021, said the bills would "take away the voice of the employees."

Labor has immense influence in Sacramento, with Democrats in control of every statewide office and both legislative houses.

Rogue SEIU members Noujaim and Lisa Garcia – a colleague and fellow union dissident – are defeated but remain undeterred.

"Every single employee, I believe, in the state of California would rather take more of their money home as opposed to giving it to the unions," said Garcia.

Missouri House Overrides Veto on Public Union Dues

CBS St.Louis

May 4, 2016

JEFFERSON CITY (AP/KMOX) — The Missouri House voted Wednesday for legislation that would change how public union members pay dues, the first step to overriding a veto by Gov. Jay Nixon.

Instead of automatically paying union dues and fees through paycheck withholdings like is currently done, public employees would have to reauthorize those withholdings each year. Unions with public-sector employees would also have to make their financial records available to their workers.

Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the bill in March, but Republican leaders say they have enough votes to enact it over his objections.

Opponents say the measure is an attempt by Republicans to weaken unions in order to shift power from workers to employers. Supporters, who called the measure “paycheck protection,” counter that workers will benefit from more union transparency.

“Every time that union boss took my money and supported some political candidate that I opposed, he impinged my freedom of speech,” said Republican Whip Delus Johnson, a retired firefighter who belonged to a union for about 20 years.

The bill would exempt first responders, such as firefighters and police, from the annual reauthorization requirement, something Johnson said he did not prefer but that bill sponsor Rep. Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston, has said was a necessary compromise.

In his March veto letter, Nixon said the “political calculations” behind that exemption demonstrated that Republicans’ rhetoric about the legislation protecting workers was a pretext to pile unnecessary burdens onto unions. Wednesday’s 109-47 House vote just barely met the two-thirds majority required for a veto override, with one Democrat, Rep. Courtney Allen Curtis of Ferguson, voting for it. Curtis, who is black, has said unions have not been inclusive enough to minorities.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the legislation sparked about seven hours of filibustering earlier this year.

But with less than two weeks left in the session, the move threatens to derail less controversial legislation, said Rep. John Rizzo, the Kansas City Democrat who serves as minority whip.

“We’re going to send them a ticking time bomb,” he said, noting that disagreements over union legislation last year brought the Senate to a halt during the session’s final week.

Nixon vetoed a similar bill in 2013, which lawmakers failed to override. And despite GOP supermajorities in both chambers last year, lawmakers failed to overturn Nixon’s veto of so-called “right-to-work” legislation that would have barred private-sector unions from requiring workers to pay fees.

This year’s bill calls for unions that include public employees to make five years of financial records including spending, loans and officers’ salaries available to any worker they represent. If the organization does not, the worker could sue.

“What’s anti-worker about saying that a member of a labor organization should know basic financial information about their union?” said House Speaker Todd Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff. “Trust and confidence in public and private unions is at an all-time low. Maybe a little transparency would help.”

Members from both parties accused the other side of lying during Wednesday’s debate. Lawmakers repeatedly tried blocking members of the other party from speaking, with one exchange escalating to a lawmaker shouting a profanity across the chamber.

(Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

How Labor Unions Defend Causes that Harm Workers

VANESA VALLEJO 

MAY 3, 2016

Minimum Wage, Paid Vacation and Social Benefits Are Poisoned Gifts.

Labor Day is celebrated on May 1 throughout different parts of the world, and throughout those different parts of the world, trade unionists march in demand for better working conditions while denouncing the past and present abuses against them.

But agreeing with the trade unions’ rhetoric is easy. Most of their proposals seem courageous and necessary, but all that glitters is not gold — especially when it comes to economics and politics. Proposals that seem too good to be true are very often just that.

It turns out the union movement’s best-known arguments are extremely deceptive, and hurt the lower class. Many trade unionists who support such arguments are not aware of the terrible damage caused by their actions. Some speeches made by them seem so noble that it is normally very difficult to foresee the implications of their suggestions.

It could be said that the union leaders’ main struggle refers to minimum wage. Many might say this is a very important fight, and that earning at least a minimum salary should be a guarantee to ensure everyone lives comfortably.

Except that imposing a minimum wage actually pushes the poor into unemployment.

An employer pays a worker in accordance with the value of his productivity. But when a government bows to union pressure and imposes a minimum wage law, all those people bringing an inferior value to the production process are condemned to unemployment and informal work. The most vulnerable, therefore, are those who have lower productivity than the minimum wage: single mothers, inexperienced youngsters, uneducated people and immigrants.

Imposing a minimum wage actually hurts those it intends to benefit. It is common to hear people talking about how sad it is that there are people living on less than the minimum wage. But isn’t it sadder and more cruel to condemn those who have no education or experience to unemployment? Should they not be able to decide whether or not to accept a lower salary than that established by law?

Social Security is another struggle for unions. Trade unionists in Colombia, for example, proudly say that 68 percent of healthcare funding is provided by employers. But that 68 percent supposedly coming out of the employer’s pocket is actually deducted from the worker’s salary.

The same applies to holiday pay, which many believe is a great achievement for workers. What they don’t realize is that each day spent on the beach is still deducted from a worker’s salary. Employees in Colombia supposedly have 15 working days a year of paid vacation. However, as anywhere in the world, money is deducted from the remaining days the employee does work, meaning that workers usually end up paying for their own holidays.

Thus, what the unions describe as a sort of social conquest is really a social detriment — a violation of the freedom of choice. Many young, inexperienced and uneducated workers are willing to work for less than minimum wage, and thus have a livelihood, but they don’t have the choice because some unions and politicians have already decided it is not right for them to work below a certain threshold.

This is not to demonize unionism itself, which emerged as a valid struggle for the right to freedom of association. It’s important that groups of people work together to appoint representatives that can negotiate with their employers.

But what we see today is a politicized institution in itself, working for its own benefit no different from the big bosses it was originally trying to protect against.

Employee Rights Act would make unions more responsive to members

By Orrin G. Hatch

May 03 2016

Decades before my election to the United States Senate, I was a metal lather in Pittsburgh, working long hours to support a struggling family. Like my father before me, I joined a union that promised to protect my basic rights as an employee. Such labor unions have fought for improved working conditions throughout our nation's history.

Sadly, labor unions today too often fall short of representing the true interests of their membership. Unions that fail to represent the needs of Utah's workers are a detriment to our state. To restore the rights of the American worker and empower hardworking individuals with greater choice in the workplace, I have introduced in Congress the Employee Rights Act. This bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Tom Price in the House, would allow workers a greater role in determining how their unions represent them.

Common sense says that American workers should be able to decide how to spend their hard-earned paychecks. But current labor law allows unions to deduct millions of dollars every year from employee paychecks to fund political causes that many of their members oppose. For example, in the last election, nearly 40 percent of union members voted for Republicans, yet almost 90 percent of union-sponsored political contributions went to Democrats. Instead of being compelled to help fund causes they don't support, workers should be able to speak for themselves.

The Employee Rights Act puts a stop to this coercive practice. My bill preserves free speech and protects the paychecks of Utah's families by requiring unions to obtain explicit permission from members before using union dues for political purposes or any other non-bargaining activity. Workers deserve the right to determine where their money is spent. They should never have to endorse a political cause or activity that they don't support themselves.

In addition to protecting individual workers' speech, this bill also provides crucial privacy protections. Union organizers are currently permitted to collect phone numbers and home addresses of employees at the start of an organizing campaign. In the past, some organizers have used this information to visit workers in their homes. While employees may opt out of sharing information, it is far better if workers are able to decide for themselves whether they want such information shared and with whom. The Employee Rights Act protects worker privacy by empowering them to choose whether and when to share personal information with union organizers, rather than making sharing the default option.

To address everyday union members' lack of meaningful control of their union leadership, this bill also seeks to make unions more democratic. Today's unions can collect dues and make rules with virtually no say from their members. In fact, a majority of today's workers never even chose their unions; they were forced to accept current union representation as a condition of being hired. Less than 7 percent of unionized employees actually voted for the union in their workplace. Again, it seems like common sense that workers should be free to make that choice themselves.

We must update these outdated laws to ensure that workers have the right to decide whether they want to be represented by their current union. My bill grants individuals that right by requiring unions to be recertified when employee turnover exceeds 50 percent since the last election. It also makes these elections more democratic by requiring unions to be elected by a majority of employees through a secret ballot election, rather than through card check.

Our nation must work to promote the success of American workers and businesses in today's global economy. The Employee Rights Act does precisely that by bringing our labor laws into the 21st century, creating choice and opportunity in the workplace, and protecting our nation's greatest resource — the American worker. Congress should support these commonsense reforms and protect Utahns' rights by supporting this critical bill.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch is Utah's senior senator.

Verizon, unions still far from agreement after latest talks fail

By Scott Moritz BLOOMBERG NEWS  

MAY 04, 2016

NEW YORK — Verizon Communications Inc. and two labor unions representing about 39,000 striking landline workers rejected one another’s latest proposals toward a new contract Monday, though they remain open to a new round of talks.

The two sides are struggling to narrow differences over moving jobs overseas and closing call centers, George Kohl, a representative for the Communications Workers of America, said on a conference call Tuesday. Richard Young, a Verizon spokesman, said the carrier rebuffed the union’s counteroffer on the issues without providing details.

“Benefits don’t matter if you don’t have a job,” Louise Novotny, a CWA representative, said on the conference call.

Members of the CWA and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers walked off the job 20 days ago, and have picketed hundreds of Verizon offices, stores, equipment facilities, and job sites in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. The FiOS technicians, cable splicers, and customer-service representatives have been working without a contract since Aug. 1.

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless carrier, wants union workers to contribute more to health benefits and be flexible on temporary job relocations.

total:0

Last week the company offered a wage increase of 7.5 percent over three years, which the union rejected.

The unions, for their part, want to limit transfers of workers to other regions, protect jobs from being moved abroad, and preserve pension increases.

They’ve also questioned Verizon’s use of cash to pay for stock buybacks and potentially purchase Yahoo! Inc. “when they could be building out the Northeast,” Kohl said.

During the strike, Verizon has assigned managers, temps, and contract employees to call centers and jobs out in the field. Union members are tapping a $400 million “safety net” fund to help pay health care costs, said Kohl.

The previous Verizon strike, in 2011, lasted two weeks as workers returned to their jobs without a new contract as negotiations continued.

Is an NJ Transit strike still possible after 2 unions reject deal?

By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com 

May 03, 2016 

The sigh of relief that came from commuters in March at the news that a potential NJ Transit strike has been averted evaporated to a groan this weekend after two rail unions rejected a tentative agreement.

What happened and what's next? Here's what we know so far.

Q: Which rail unions rejected the contract?

A: Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers rejected the contract on Friday and the United Transportation Union, which represents conductors, voted it down on Saturday. NJ Transit officials said that 13 other unions have ratified separate contracts, which have been approved by the agency and are in effect.

Q: What's the next step?

A: The two unions and NJ Transit now return to the bargaining table. A 60-day cooling off period is in effect.

That cooling off period was to allow time for the tentative agreement, reached in March, to be ratified. It also allows for negotiations to happen in case one of the unions didn't ratify the contract, said attorney Don Munro, a partner in employee-labor relations at Jones Day and an expert in Federal Railway Labor law.

Depending on union ratification rules, union leadership and NJ Transit can agree to extend that cooling off period.

Q: Are both sides talking? 

A: Officials of both unions said they intend to return to the bargaining table. Separate meetings are being scheduled with each union, said Jennifer M. Nelson, an NJ Transit spokeswoman.

Q: Could there be a strike?

A: If the cooling off period isn't extended, the same rules apply under the Federal Railway Labor Act, which governed the last cooling-off period in March. At the end of the 60-day cooling off period, the unions could strike, NJ Transit management could lock workers out, or they could continue to talk. That period runs out at the end of June.

Q: What happens if there is a strike or lock-out?

A: If there is no agreement and a strike or lock-out happens, then Congress gets involved and could impose its own settlement, Munro said. That authority comes from the Constitution. But that is rare, happening only four to five times in the last 100 years, he said.

It would require special legislation, which Munro said is difficult to pass. Neither Congress or the President has the power to order striking employees back to work under the Railway Labor Act, he said.

Q: What could Congress do? 

A: In the past, Congress has crafted settlements using terms from tentative agreements or recommendations made by Presidential Emergency Boards, Munro said. Two such boards, made up of independent mediators, were formed and made recommendations in the NJ Transit negotiations.

Since there is a tentative agreement with these two unions, Congress could impose that agreement, with some changes, he said. That legislation has to be signed by the president.

Q: How common is it for a union not to ratify a tentative agreement? 

A: It used to be rare, but in the past 15 to 20 years, failed ratification votes have happened more frequently, Munro said. One reason may be due to the influence of social media, which allows a dissenting group within a union to convince their colleagues that the terms of a tentative agreement aren't in their best interest, he said.

Q: When was the last NJ Transit strike? 

A: The only rail strike in NJ Transit history was in March 1983 and lasted for 34 days.

Wayne County Labor Unions Launch Petition Drive To Cut Elected Officials’ Salaries

CBS Detroit

May 3, 2016

DETROIT (WWJ) – Wayne County labor unions are launching a pair or petition drives in hopes of cutting the salaries of Wayne County Commissioners.

The “Wayne County Citizens for Reform” organization is kicking off the effort Tuesday afternoon in hopes of putting two amendments on the November ballot.

One would cut Commissioners’ salaries from $61,000 a year to $45,000 and the second would make it illegal for any county employee to engage in what’s known as”double dipping” — collecting a pension check and a regular county check at the same time.

Organizers will be distributing both petitions to volunteers at a kickoff rally at Michigan AFSCME Council 25 in downtown Detroit Tuesday evening.

The chair of the Wayne County Commission says the petition drive is puzzling because commissioners have not had a pay raise in 14 years and, if approved, the amendments don’t put any more money in the pockets of county workers and would have little impact on the county’s budget.

The goal is to collect 66,000 voter signatures in 60 days.