(GOP) Crippling the Right to Organize
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
UNLESS something changes in Washington, American workers will, on New Year’s Day, effectively lose their right to be represented by a union.
Two of the five seats on the National Labor Relations Board, which protects collective bargaining, are vacant, and on Dec. 31, the term of Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whom President Obama named to the board last year through a recess appointment, will expire. Without a quorum, the Supreme Court ruled last year, the board cannot decide cases.
What would this mean?
Workers illegally fired for union organizing won’t be reinstated with back pay. Employers will be able to get away with interfering with Union Elections. Perhaps most important, employers won’t have to recognize unions despite a majority vote by workers. Without the board to enforce Labor Law, most companies will not voluntarily deal with unions.
If this nightmare comes to pass, it will represent the culmination of three decades of Republican resistance to the Labor Board — an unwillingness to recognize the fundamental right of workers to band together, if they wish, to seek better pay and working conditions. But Mr. Obama is also partly to blame; in trying to install partisan stalwarts on the board, as his predecessors did, he is all but guaranteeing that the impasse will continue. On Wednesday, he announced his intention to nominate two pro-union lawyers to the board, though there is no realistic chance that either can gain Senate confirmation anytime soon.
For decades after its creation in 1935, the Labor Board was a relatively fair arbiter between labor and capital. It has protected workers’ right to organize by, among other things, overseeing elections that decide on union representation. Employers may not engage in unfair labor practices, like intimidating organizers and discriminating against union members. Unions are prohibited, too, from doing things like improperly pressuring workers to join.
The system began to run into trouble in the 1970s. Employers found loopholes that enabled them to delay the board’s administrative proceedings, sometimes for years. Reforms intended to speed up the board’s resolution of disputes have repeatedly foundered in Congress.
The precipitous decline of organized labor — principally a result of economic forces, not legal ones — cemented Unions’ dependence on the board, despite its imperfections. Meanwhile, business interests, represented by an increasingly conservative Republican Party, became more assertive in fighting unions.
The Board became dysfunctional. Traditionally, members were career civil servants or distinguished lawyers and academics from across the country. But starting in the Reagan era, the board’s composition began to tilt toward Washington insiders like former Congressional staff members and former lobbyists.
Starting with a compromise that allowed my confirmation in 1994, the Board’s members and general counsel have been nominated in groups. In contrast to the old system, the new “batching” meant that nominees were named as a package acceptable to both parties. As a result, the board came to be filled with rigid ideologues.
Under President George W. Bush, the board all but stopped using its discretion to obtain court orders against employers before the board’s own, convoluted, administrative process was completed — a power that, used fairly, is a crucial protection for workers. In 2007, in what has been called the September Massacre, the board issued rulings that made it easier for employers to block Union organizing and harder for illegally fired employees to collect back pay. Democratic senators then blocked Mr. Bush from making recess appointments to the board, as President Bill Clinton had done. For 27 months, until March 2010, the board operated with only two members; in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it needed at least three to issue decisions.
Under Mr. Obama, the Board has begun to take enforcement more seriously, by pursuing the court orders that the board under Mr. Bush had abandoned. Sadly, though, the board has also been plagued by unnecessary controversy. In April, the acting general counsel issued a complaint over Boeing’s decision to build airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, following a dispute with Boeing machinists in Washington State. Although the complaint was dropped last week after the machinists reached a new contract agreement with Boeing, the controversy reignited Republican threats to cut financing for the board.
In my view, the complaint against Boeing was legally flawed, but the threats to cut the board’s budget represent unacceptable political interference. The shenanigans continue: last month, before the board tentatively approved new proposals that would expedite unionization elections, the sole Republican member threatened to resign, which would have again deprived the board of a quorum.
Mr. Obama needs to make this an election-year issue; if the board goes dark in January, he should draw attention to Congressional obstructionism during the campaign and defend the board’s role in protecting employees and employers. A new vision for labor-management cooperation must include not only a more powerful board, but also a less partisan one, with members who are independent and neutral experts. Otherwise, the partisan morass will continue, and American workers will suffer.
By William B. Gould, NY Times
William B. Gould IV, a law professor at Stanford, was chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994 to 1998.
Editor: This Board member thinks there are "neutral Labor experts"?
After the Rethuglian attack on Labor Unions since 1970, there are only
Union Busting Experts working for management, and rank and files'
Union Building Experts. Obama must appoint Commissioners during
the Recess.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Worker-Owner Co-Ops Spreading
Worker-Owners of America, Unite!
Ross MacDonald
By GAR ALPEROVITZ
Published: December 14, 2011
THE Occupy Wall Street protests have come and mostly gone, and whether they continue to have an impact or not, they have brought an astounding fact to the public’s attention: a mere 1 percent of Americans own just under half of the country’s financial assets and other investments. America, it would seem, is less equitable than ever, thanks to our no-holds-barred capitalist system.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the populist and progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the populist and progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
London Strike Spreads to 1000 Cities
'Biggest strike in a generation' for Britain's public sector workers
More than two thirds of British schools were shut on Wednesday as an estimated two million public sector workers staged a one-day walkout in a row over pension reforms.
Unions claimed the strike, which saw thousands of hospital operations cancelled and caused delays at British airports, was the biggest industrial action in the UK for more than thirty years.
Employees responsible for delivering many of Britain's public services are angry over plans to raise their retirement age to 67 and force workers to increase their monthly pension contributions.
The government insists that workers must face up to a stark new reality. The British economy is barely growing and is feeling the effects of the eurozone crisis, not to mention the UK's own debt problems.
Ministers claim that workers in the public sector, which includes Britain's largest employer, the National Health Service (NHS), have seen their standard of living rise dramatically over the last ten years, while those on the private sector payroll have seen average incomes fall.
Public opinion divided
But some workers say the government has exaggerated just how generous public sector pensions are, in an attempt to split public opinion.
"The average pension for people working in the NHS is 8,000 pounds (9,340 euros; $12,554) a year," said Jackie Hall, a child psychotherapist for the NHS. "It's made out as if the rest of the country is financing something which is exorbitant. But it's actually something very modest and really well earned," said Hall, who joined Wednesday's march through central London with her colleagues.
More than 25,000 people turned out for the rally on the banks of the River Thames, just a short walk from London's famous Houses of Parliament.
Union officials hoped that despite battling a coalition government determined to cut Britain's enormous public deficit, the one-day strike would help force officials to rethink their offer.
"We've been in negotiations with the government since January," said Karen Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of Unison, Britain's largest public sector union. "It was only the day before we announced our ballot that the government went to parliament and made some concessions," she added.
Economic outlook worsens
But in a warning that unions may be too optimistic, UK Chancellor George Osborne told parliament less than 24 hours earlier, that additional austerity measures were necessary to bring down Britain's debt levels.
Public sector workers, he said, could expect just a one percent annual pay increase between now and 2014. Osborne said he had no option but to bring forward plans to increase the retirement age.
Workers attending the London rally say morale in many parts of the UK's public sector is at an all-time low.
"I'm now facing a time when I'm reconsidering my career because I'd be much better off in the private sector," said Judith McAteer, a teacher from the London borough of Lewisham.
"Conditions are getting worse and the only thing you had to look forward to was a decent pension. But that's being taken away from us as well," added McAteer who moved to the British capital from Northern Ireland because of a lack of employment prospects.
Despite those worries, analysts warn that Britain's public sector faces even tougher times. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that another 330,000 jobs will have to be lost before 2015 in addition to nearly half a million positions already earmarked to be cut.
Women bear the brunt
Unions say that women will be disproportionately affected by the reforms as many are employed as nurses, teachers and social workers.
"Women are looking after people every day of the week. They're the cohesive side of society," said Karen Jennings from the union Unison. "I think people, and the female voter in particular, will make sure that the government rues the day if they don't concede," she warned.
Unlike many health workers, Britain's 400,000 nurses did not take part in the strike. Nurses unions, who are due to ballot their members about industrial action in January, are equally worried about the government's plans to increase pension contributions.
Union leaders says it is the equivalent of a three percent tax increase, at a time when inflation in the UK has reached more than five percent and Britain's sales tax was raised to 20 percent.
"What the government is saying to us is 'you can pay more, work longer and get a lot less at the end of it'," said Faith Thornhill, who works at University College Hospital in London.
The nurse, who joined a picket line for striking workers warned ministers that they may end up with a much bigger pension bill: "A lot of us can't afford the increase and may have to leave the scheme," said Thornhill. "If that happens and the scheme collapses, we'll be more reliant on our state pension and it will cost the government more."
Minimal Disruption
More than a thousand similar rallies were held all over the UK. An estimated 20,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester, another 10,000 protested in Glasgow.
Despite fears that the one-day strike would bring much of Britain to a standstill, commentators said the disruption was minimal. Border officials arranged alternative cover for customs officers at UK ports and airports. Contingency plans at hospitals and local government offices helped keep services running.
About a third of council staff in England and Wales were not at work on Wednesday.
Prime Minister David Cameron played down the impact of the walk-out described the strike as a "damp squib" while Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said the strike was "a terrific success".
Author: Nik Martin
Editor: Joanna Impey
<http://mobile.dw-world.de/english/ua.2/mobile.A-15569126-1433.html>
More than two thirds of British schools were shut on Wednesday as an estimated two million public sector workers staged a one-day walkout in a row over pension reforms.
Unions claimed the strike, which saw thousands of hospital operations cancelled and caused delays at British airports, was the biggest industrial action in the UK for more than thirty years.
Employees responsible for delivering many of Britain's public services are angry over plans to raise their retirement age to 67 and force workers to increase their monthly pension contributions.
The government insists that workers must face up to a stark new reality. The British economy is barely growing and is feeling the effects of the eurozone crisis, not to mention the UK's own debt problems.
Ministers claim that workers in the public sector, which includes Britain's largest employer, the National Health Service (NHS), have seen their standard of living rise dramatically over the last ten years, while those on the private sector payroll have seen average incomes fall.
Public opinion divided
But some workers say the government has exaggerated just how generous public sector pensions are, in an attempt to split public opinion.
"The average pension for people working in the NHS is 8,000 pounds (9,340 euros; $12,554) a year," said Jackie Hall, a child psychotherapist for the NHS. "It's made out as if the rest of the country is financing something which is exorbitant. But it's actually something very modest and really well earned," said Hall, who joined Wednesday's march through central London with her colleagues.
More than 25,000 people turned out for the rally on the banks of the River Thames, just a short walk from London's famous Houses of Parliament.
Union officials hoped that despite battling a coalition government determined to cut Britain's enormous public deficit, the one-day strike would help force officials to rethink their offer.
"We've been in negotiations with the government since January," said Karen Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of Unison, Britain's largest public sector union. "It was only the day before we announced our ballot that the government went to parliament and made some concessions," she added.
Economic outlook worsens
But in a warning that unions may be too optimistic, UK Chancellor George Osborne told parliament less than 24 hours earlier, that additional austerity measures were necessary to bring down Britain's debt levels.
Public sector workers, he said, could expect just a one percent annual pay increase between now and 2014. Osborne said he had no option but to bring forward plans to increase the retirement age.
Workers attending the London rally say morale in many parts of the UK's public sector is at an all-time low.
"I'm now facing a time when I'm reconsidering my career because I'd be much better off in the private sector," said Judith McAteer, a teacher from the London borough of Lewisham.
"Conditions are getting worse and the only thing you had to look forward to was a decent pension. But that's being taken away from us as well," added McAteer who moved to the British capital from Northern Ireland because of a lack of employment prospects.
Despite those worries, analysts warn that Britain's public sector faces even tougher times. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that another 330,000 jobs will have to be lost before 2015 in addition to nearly half a million positions already earmarked to be cut.
Women bear the brunt
Unions say that women will be disproportionately affected by the reforms as many are employed as nurses, teachers and social workers.
"Women are looking after people every day of the week. They're the cohesive side of society," said Karen Jennings from the union Unison. "I think people, and the female voter in particular, will make sure that the government rues the day if they don't concede," she warned.
Unlike many health workers, Britain's 400,000 nurses did not take part in the strike. Nurses unions, who are due to ballot their members about industrial action in January, are equally worried about the government's plans to increase pension contributions.
Union leaders says it is the equivalent of a three percent tax increase, at a time when inflation in the UK has reached more than five percent and Britain's sales tax was raised to 20 percent.
"What the government is saying to us is 'you can pay more, work longer and get a lot less at the end of it'," said Faith Thornhill, who works at University College Hospital in London.
The nurse, who joined a picket line for striking workers warned ministers that they may end up with a much bigger pension bill: "A lot of us can't afford the increase and may have to leave the scheme," said Thornhill. "If that happens and the scheme collapses, we'll be more reliant on our state pension and it will cost the government more."
Minimal Disruption
More than a thousand similar rallies were held all over the UK. An estimated 20,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester, another 10,000 protested in Glasgow.
Despite fears that the one-day strike would bring much of Britain to a standstill, commentators said the disruption was minimal. Border officials arranged alternative cover for customs officers at UK ports and airports. Contingency plans at hospitals and local government offices helped keep services running.
About a third of council staff in England and Wales were not at work on Wednesday.
Prime Minister David Cameron played down the impact of the walk-out described the strike as a "damp squib" while Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said the strike was "a terrific success".
Author: Nik Martin
Editor: Joanna Impey
<http://mobile.dw-world.de/english/ua.2/mobile.A-15569126-1433.html>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)