CWA Activists Challenge Secret TPP Trade Deal
CWA Union activists from Local 9509
Protest top secret TPP Trade deal in San Diego.
CWA activists were part of a big crowd that stood up to Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators this week, demanding more transparency and openness in what could be the biggest free trade agreement in the world.
Rallying in San Diego, site of the 13th round of negotiations, CWAers joined nearly 200 others activists from the AFL-CIO and other unions, Citizens Trade Campaign, Sierra Club and other organizations.
CWA is working with allies to highlight the dangers of TPP — what some have dubbed "NAFTA on steroids" — including the possible end to "Buy American" policies, offshoring of millions of good-paying jobs and rolling back of important Wall Street regulations. In addition, the deal would jeopardize the sovereignty of the 11 nations by giving more power to large corporations like Walmart, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs and Halliburton.
"This not only contributes to the nation's severe unemployment problems, but it pushes down wages and benefits for the jobs we have left," said Lorena Gonzalez, chief executive officer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, at the rally outside the Hilton San Diego Bayfront Hotel. "That means a smaller tax base to support our schools, our infrastructure, and other critical services."
"Let us say, 'open these negotiations to the people,'" Rep. Bob Filner, a San Diego Democrat, told the crowd. "Let's stop this so-called free trade."
The talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam; Mexico, Canada and Japan have expressed interest in joining.
But, despite growing support for public access to the documents and discussions, the United States Trade Representative continues to deny key stakeholders a seat at the table.
On Saturday, the Coalition plans to make some noise throughout downtown San Diego in the Occupy-led "Pots & Pans" protest.
Read more at http://stoptpp.org/.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Supremes Cut Labor Rights
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Unions
Especially in SEIU fight over Extra Dues
The Supreme Court ruled that unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
June 21, 2012, 11:06 a.m.WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Thursday to public employee Unions in a case from California, ruling that Unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
The dispute turned on a relatively small amount of money, but one that involved an important principle of the 1st Amendment. The case also carried echoes of the recent fights in Wisconsin and other states over limiting the power of public employee unions.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices said the Service Employees International Union violated the 1stAmendment when it collected an extra $6.45 per month from state employees in fall 2005.
The Union’s leaders had vowed to create a special $12-million fund to oppose two ballot measures sponsored by then-Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger that was seen as targeting public unions. They decided on a mid-year dues increase to pay for the campaign and said they would refund money later to those non-union employees who objected.
But a group of dissenting union members sued, alleging the forced special assessment violated their rights.
For decades, the Supreme Court has upheld an uneasy compromise between two rights. On the one hand, federal labor law protects the right of workers to form unions and the right of unions in some states to collect dues money from all employees to pay for collective bargaining.
On the other hand, the 1st Amendment bars the government from forcing persons, including public employees, to pay for political causes and candidates who they oppose. For that reason, public employee Unions must give dissenting members the right to opt out of paying the share of dues that goes to politics.
In the California case, the SEIU said it gave employees an annual notice of the dues and what share would go to supporting the Union and what share would go to politics. Its leaders maintained they were not required to send a mid-year notice at the time of the special assessment in 2005.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the union in a 2-1 decision, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Knox vs. SEIU.
In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.
"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1st Amendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector Union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the Unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, but did not join Alito’s opinion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented. They said dissenting members deserved the right to “opt out” of such a special assessment, but they disagreed with requiring the Union to get their advance approval to “opt in” to such a fund.
Breyer said he worried the court’s opinion could be read to mean that public unions must seek affirmative approval from all members before spending dues money on politics.
“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Breyer said.
“The question of how a nonmember indicates a desire not to pay constitutes an important part of this debate.… There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now
by David Savage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story
Especially in SEIU fight over Extra Dues
The Supreme Court ruled that unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
June 21, 2012, 11:06 a.m.WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Thursday to public employee Unions in a case from California, ruling that Unions must win approval in advance from dissenting members before they collect extra dues in mid-year to pay for a political campaign.
The dispute turned on a relatively small amount of money, but one that involved an important principle of the 1st Amendment. The case also carried echoes of the recent fights in Wisconsin and other states over limiting the power of public employee unions.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices said the Service Employees International Union violated the 1stAmendment when it collected an extra $6.45 per month from state employees in fall 2005.
The Union’s leaders had vowed to create a special $12-million fund to oppose two ballot measures sponsored by then-Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger that was seen as targeting public unions. They decided on a mid-year dues increase to pay for the campaign and said they would refund money later to those non-union employees who objected.
But a group of dissenting union members sued, alleging the forced special assessment violated their rights.
For decades, the Supreme Court has upheld an uneasy compromise between two rights. On the one hand, federal labor law protects the right of workers to form unions and the right of unions in some states to collect dues money from all employees to pay for collective bargaining.
On the other hand, the 1st Amendment bars the government from forcing persons, including public employees, to pay for political causes and candidates who they oppose. For that reason, public employee Unions must give dissenting members the right to opt out of paying the share of dues that goes to politics.
In the California case, the SEIU said it gave employees an annual notice of the dues and what share would go to supporting the Union and what share would go to politics. Its leaders maintained they were not required to send a mid-year notice at the time of the special assessment in 2005.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the union in a 2-1 decision, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Knox vs. SEIU.
In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.
"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1st Amendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector Union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the Unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, but did not join Alito’s opinion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented. They said dissenting members deserved the right to “opt out” of such a special assessment, but they disagreed with requiring the Union to get their advance approval to “opt in” to such a fund.
Breyer said he worried the court’s opinion could be read to mean that public unions must seek affirmative approval from all members before spending dues money on politics.
“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Breyer said.
“The question of how a nonmember indicates a desire not to pay constitutes an important part of this debate.… There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now
by David Savage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story
Thursday, June 21, 2012
No. Car. Snubs Labor Day
Charlotte, NC Snubs Labor Day Parade
Jason Cherkis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
The Democratic National Committee's selection of Charlotte, N.C., to host its convention has angered labor Unions, with advocates arguing that the right-to-work state is one of the least supportive for Union work, and that the city -- home to Bank of America's headquarters -- has no Unionized hotel workers. Now unions say they have another reason to gripe.
Charlotte is snubbing its local Labor Day parade, Union representatives claim, with the city citing security concerns though the parade takes place the day before the Democratic National Convention starts. The city has forced organizers to jettison the parade's traditional route -- passing through the heart of downtown -- for a more out-of-the-way route along the city's outer edge. City officials have also banned motorized vehicles from participating in the festivities, and even tried to ban marching bands, according to the parade organizers.`
Union representatives say something bigger than drum lines might be at stake, if what had once been considered a family-friendly event is now being considered threatening. "We are not really happy," says Cindy Foster, president of the Southern Piedmont Central Labor Council, a part of the AFL-CIO representing North Carolina. "The event is being treated more as a protest."
And now the parade may look a lot more like one, organizers say.
The hour-long parade has typically resembled nothing more than a community gathering to celebrate work and wave a few American flags, participants describe. High school bands marched alongside Teamsters in big trucks. Local dignitaries waved from convertibles and vintage cars. Firefighters rode by and marching bands strutted in sync. The parade's chairman, Ben Lee, estimates that about a third of the parade had been on wheels. "Everything's different this year," Lee says. "We knew last summer things were going to be different."
Convention organizers say any dealings over the parade are the city's responsibility. Robert A. Tufano, a spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, says the old parade route had been in the way of the convention activities. "With the DNC beginning the following day, security and transportation set-up and planning preclude the use of the traditional route," Tufano wrote in an email.
Tufano refutes Lee and Foster's claim that marching bands were at first barred from the parade. He adds that the parade's use of cars might still be on the table. "We will continue to discuss the possible inclusion of floats and/or motorized vehicles with the parade organizers in light of security concerns," he said.
Parade chairman Lee says he considers the security issue a legitimate reason for the parade downsizing and that the city has been cooperative during the negotiations. But Jeremy Sprinkle, the communications director for the North Carolina AFL-CIO, says the city's fight over parade has been unnecessary. "To the extent that the city is making it difficult, that doesn't paint the city of Charlotte in a good light," Sprinkle tells HuffPost.
At least the parade rerouting has stirred up Union members, Sprinkle adds. "It has gotten more people fired up about exercising their freedom of speech," he says.
Scott Thrower, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 379, is not so much a fired-up participant as a disappointed one. This time, he'll have to leave his float on the sidelines. Last year, he says the float marked the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 with a tribute to the twin towers. "We had 12 IBEW members who passed away," Thrower says. The display was 10 feet by 10 feet, and members recreated the towers out of wood.
"We always take pride in our float,'' Thrower says. "It's the one day a year we get to shine. It's not the Macy's Day parade, but we always get a good crowd."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Jason Cherkis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
The Democratic National Committee's selection of Charlotte, N.C., to host its convention has angered labor Unions, with advocates arguing that the right-to-work state is one of the least supportive for Union work, and that the city -- home to Bank of America's headquarters -- has no Unionized hotel workers. Now unions say they have another reason to gripe.
Charlotte is snubbing its local Labor Day parade, Union representatives claim, with the city citing security concerns though the parade takes place the day before the Democratic National Convention starts. The city has forced organizers to jettison the parade's traditional route -- passing through the heart of downtown -- for a more out-of-the-way route along the city's outer edge. City officials have also banned motorized vehicles from participating in the festivities, and even tried to ban marching bands, according to the parade organizers.`
Union representatives say something bigger than drum lines might be at stake, if what had once been considered a family-friendly event is now being considered threatening. "We are not really happy," says Cindy Foster, president of the Southern Piedmont Central Labor Council, a part of the AFL-CIO representing North Carolina. "The event is being treated more as a protest."
And now the parade may look a lot more like one, organizers say.
The hour-long parade has typically resembled nothing more than a community gathering to celebrate work and wave a few American flags, participants describe. High school bands marched alongside Teamsters in big trucks. Local dignitaries waved from convertibles and vintage cars. Firefighters rode by and marching bands strutted in sync. The parade's chairman, Ben Lee, estimates that about a third of the parade had been on wheels. "Everything's different this year," Lee says. "We knew last summer things were going to be different."
Convention organizers say any dealings over the parade are the city's responsibility. Robert A. Tufano, a spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, says the old parade route had been in the way of the convention activities. "With the DNC beginning the following day, security and transportation set-up and planning preclude the use of the traditional route," Tufano wrote in an email.
Tufano refutes Lee and Foster's claim that marching bands were at first barred from the parade. He adds that the parade's use of cars might still be on the table. "We will continue to discuss the possible inclusion of floats and/or motorized vehicles with the parade organizers in light of security concerns," he said.
Parade chairman Lee says he considers the security issue a legitimate reason for the parade downsizing and that the city has been cooperative during the negotiations. But Jeremy Sprinkle, the communications director for the North Carolina AFL-CIO, says the city's fight over parade has been unnecessary. "To the extent that the city is making it difficult, that doesn't paint the city of Charlotte in a good light," Sprinkle tells HuffPost.
At least the parade rerouting has stirred up Union members, Sprinkle adds. "It has gotten more people fired up about exercising their freedom of speech," he says.
Scott Thrower, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 379, is not so much a fired-up participant as a disappointed one. This time, he'll have to leave his float on the sidelines. Last year, he says the float marked the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 with a tribute to the twin towers. "We had 12 IBEW members who passed away," Thrower says. The display was 10 feet by 10 feet, and members recreated the towers out of wood.
"We always take pride in our float,'' Thrower says. "It's the one day a year we get to shine. It's not the Macy's Day parade, but we always get a good crowd."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-national-convention-charlotte-labor-day-unions_n_1613476.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Friday, June 1, 2012
Postal Unions Fight Back
Postal Workers, Community Allies Increase Pressure
as USPS Cuts Loom
Theresa Moran
As Congress dallies, some Postal workers and community activists are turning to civil disobedience to combat the sweeping cuts planned for the Postal Service. Union tops are sticking to a legislative strategy.
Ten postal worker and community activists in Portland, Oregon, were arrested May 24 when they occupied the city’s University Station Post Office, refusing to leave and blocking the closure of the office’s retail desk.
Nearly 100 supporters rallied outside as the activists inside held their ground, singing and holding banners proclaiming “Occupy the Post Office” and “No Closures! No Cuts!”
Police hauled them out after an hour and a half.
The occupation was organized by members of Communities and Postal Workers United, a cross-union network of postal worker activists. Other groups active in the “Occupy the Post Office” coalition include Jobs with Justice, the Rural Organizing Project, and Occupy groups.
The arrests, the first in the fight to save the post office, mark an escalation in tactics that CPWU organizers hope will spread to communities across the country.
According to Jamie Partridge, an arrestee from Occupy Portland and a retired postal worker, the action was meant to press Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe to halt his announced cuts and closures, which could slow mail and cost thousands of jobs as soon as this summer.
“It’s Congress and the President who can fix postal finances, but our immediate target is the Postmaster General,” Partridge said.
Activists with the Rural Organizing Project have occupied rural post offices in Oregon, and c+ommunity/labor coalitions against cuts have been active in New York, Baltimore, and rural Vermont.
The four postal unions (Mail Handlers, Postal Workers, Letter Carriers, and Rural Letter Carriers) have stuck to traditional rallies, jointly organizing a September 27 day of action with events in nearly 500 cities.
NO LEGISLATIVE FIX
The arrests come a month after the Senate passed a bill meant to provide relief to the financially struggling post office, a bill CPWU activists criticize for not going far enough.
Absent a fix from Congress, Donohoe’s plans for massive cuts to jobs and services will soon be underway. The Senate’s bill would do little to chase away the albatross dragging on USPS finances: an obligation passed by Congress in 2006 that requires the postal service to pre-fund the health benefits of retirees up to 75 years in the future. This requirement, not shared by any other federal agency, costs the postal service a hefty $5.5 billion per year.
The bill aims to ease the burden by allowing the postal service to make payments over a longer period of time but would also slash 100,000 postal jobs, largely through buyouts. If made law, the bill would make it harder for USPS to close small rural post offices and would preserve overnight delivery standards for three more years and Saturday delivery for two.
While some laud these provisions as victories—if enacted—there’s nothing to prevent the USPS from slashing standards after the protections expire. Indeed, postal managers have already said eliminating overnight delivery is one key strategy for cost savings in the near future.
Postal activists like Partridge, who’s on the Letter Carriers Branch 82 organizing committee, doubt the bill would do much to help. “It doesn’t actually take anything off the chopping block and it doesn’t fix the pre-funding issue,” he said.
Even leaders of the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers criticized the bill as “flawed” and “deeply flawed” for allowing cuts and not doing enough to relieve the financial burden that Congress itself placed upon the USPS.
CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
Of course, none of these provisions will become law until postal relief legislation passes in the House, which seems unlikely anytime soon. That’s just as well, as the leading bill is one sponsored by California Republican Darrell Issa, who seeks to slash postal jobs and services into oblivion. Issa has refused to let a more favorable bill with broad support among House members come to a vote.
In the wake of Congress’s failure to pass timely relief legislation, Donohoe is moving ahead with major cuts. Plans to slash hours at post offices and to close processing plants were announced just in time for expiration of a May 15 moratorium on cuts and closures.
On May 17, the Postal Service announced it would go forward with plans to close half of its 461 mail processing plants over the next two years. The first round of 48 closures will happen this summer. On the chopping block are the 28,000 jobs in those plants, positions represented by the Postal Workers.
The week before, USPS announced it would reduce hours at 13,000 rural post offices across the country. There are 31,500 post offices nationwide. In the rural locations, full-time postmasters will be replaced with part-timers. The USPS is pushing early retirement for 21,000 postmasters. It’s not yet clear how many other jobs will be lost.
The newly announced cuts are a departure from the Postal Service’s original plan. Last July, Donohoe said he would close 3,700 rural, urban, and suburban offices that the USPS identified as low-revenue.
In a May 9 press release, Donohoe said the switch from closures to shorter hours was made in response to public opposition and that the agency would not shutter any offices “without having provided a viable solution.”
NOT A VICTORY
Postal activists caution, however, against labeling Donohoe’s new plan a win.
“This is no victory at all. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re closing 3,700 or cutting hours at 13,000—you’re still cutting service,” says Tom Dodge, a truck driver at the Baltimore mail processing center and an organizer with Communities and Postal Workers United.
At most offices, service cuts will come in the form of slashing operating hours. Many retail desks could see their open hours whittled down to as little as two a day. Such drastic cuts will effectively render post offices inaccessible to “anybody who has to work for a living,” Partridge said. Towns with offices on the cuts list also have the option of replacing the office with a “village post office,” a retail desk located within a private business such as a gas station or Walmart. Village post offices can sell stamps and ship flat-rate packages, but can’t handle weighing packages, shipping express or registered mail, or selling money orders.
The desks are staffed not by Unionized USPS workers but by non-union employees of the business where they’re located. Processing plant closures also mean serious problems for customers. Dodge knows firsthand how problematic these “consolidations” are. In November, the Frederick, Maryland, plant was closed and its mail sent to the Baltimore plant where Dodge works, 50 miles away.
The facility was so ill-prepared to accommodate the deluge of mail from Frederick that soon 22 semi trucks full of mail were lined up outside waiting to be unloaded. Mail has been delayed, sometimes comically so. Customers reported receiving circulars for Thanksgiving sales as late as February. Even after mail was diverted to Virginia and D.C. facilities, postal workers received reports of people receiving coupons weeks after they’d expired.
As Congress stalls in fixing the financial mess it created, activists are targeting Donohoe, who has ultimate authority to stop the closures and cuts. Some hope actions like the Portland occupation may pressure him into halting the cuts, while others are calling for his ouster.
Activists believe that Postmaster Donohoe’s cuts, by increasing customer dissatisfaction with the Postal Service, fit in to his master plan to shrink it to a fraction of its current self.
Labor Notes Theresa Moran
as USPS Cuts Loom
Theresa Moran
As Congress dallies, some Postal workers and community activists are turning to civil disobedience to combat the sweeping cuts planned for the Postal Service. Union tops are sticking to a legislative strategy.
Ten postal worker and community activists in Portland, Oregon, were arrested May 24 when they occupied the city’s University Station Post Office, refusing to leave and blocking the closure of the office’s retail desk.
Nearly 100 supporters rallied outside as the activists inside held their ground, singing and holding banners proclaiming “Occupy the Post Office” and “No Closures! No Cuts!”
Police hauled them out after an hour and a half.
The occupation was organized by members of Communities and Postal Workers United, a cross-union network of postal worker activists. Other groups active in the “Occupy the Post Office” coalition include Jobs with Justice, the Rural Organizing Project, and Occupy groups.
The arrests, the first in the fight to save the post office, mark an escalation in tactics that CPWU organizers hope will spread to communities across the country.
According to Jamie Partridge, an arrestee from Occupy Portland and a retired postal worker, the action was meant to press Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe to halt his announced cuts and closures, which could slow mail and cost thousands of jobs as soon as this summer.
“It’s Congress and the President who can fix postal finances, but our immediate target is the Postmaster General,” Partridge said.
Activists with the Rural Organizing Project have occupied rural post offices in Oregon, and c+ommunity/labor coalitions against cuts have been active in New York, Baltimore, and rural Vermont.
The four postal unions (Mail Handlers, Postal Workers, Letter Carriers, and Rural Letter Carriers) have stuck to traditional rallies, jointly organizing a September 27 day of action with events in nearly 500 cities.
NO LEGISLATIVE FIX
The arrests come a month after the Senate passed a bill meant to provide relief to the financially struggling post office, a bill CPWU activists criticize for not going far enough.
Absent a fix from Congress, Donohoe’s plans for massive cuts to jobs and services will soon be underway. The Senate’s bill would do little to chase away the albatross dragging on USPS finances: an obligation passed by Congress in 2006 that requires the postal service to pre-fund the health benefits of retirees up to 75 years in the future. This requirement, not shared by any other federal agency, costs the postal service a hefty $5.5 billion per year.
The bill aims to ease the burden by allowing the postal service to make payments over a longer period of time but would also slash 100,000 postal jobs, largely through buyouts. If made law, the bill would make it harder for USPS to close small rural post offices and would preserve overnight delivery standards for three more years and Saturday delivery for two.
While some laud these provisions as victories—if enacted—there’s nothing to prevent the USPS from slashing standards after the protections expire. Indeed, postal managers have already said eliminating overnight delivery is one key strategy for cost savings in the near future.
Postal activists like Partridge, who’s on the Letter Carriers Branch 82 organizing committee, doubt the bill would do much to help. “It doesn’t actually take anything off the chopping block and it doesn’t fix the pre-funding issue,” he said.
Even leaders of the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers criticized the bill as “flawed” and “deeply flawed” for allowing cuts and not doing enough to relieve the financial burden that Congress itself placed upon the USPS.
CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
Of course, none of these provisions will become law until postal relief legislation passes in the House, which seems unlikely anytime soon. That’s just as well, as the leading bill is one sponsored by California Republican Darrell Issa, who seeks to slash postal jobs and services into oblivion. Issa has refused to let a more favorable bill with broad support among House members come to a vote.
In the wake of Congress’s failure to pass timely relief legislation, Donohoe is moving ahead with major cuts. Plans to slash hours at post offices and to close processing plants were announced just in time for expiration of a May 15 moratorium on cuts and closures.
On May 17, the Postal Service announced it would go forward with plans to close half of its 461 mail processing plants over the next two years. The first round of 48 closures will happen this summer. On the chopping block are the 28,000 jobs in those plants, positions represented by the Postal Workers.
The week before, USPS announced it would reduce hours at 13,000 rural post offices across the country. There are 31,500 post offices nationwide. In the rural locations, full-time postmasters will be replaced with part-timers. The USPS is pushing early retirement for 21,000 postmasters. It’s not yet clear how many other jobs will be lost.
The newly announced cuts are a departure from the Postal Service’s original plan. Last July, Donohoe said he would close 3,700 rural, urban, and suburban offices that the USPS identified as low-revenue.
In a May 9 press release, Donohoe said the switch from closures to shorter hours was made in response to public opposition and that the agency would not shutter any offices “without having provided a viable solution.”
NOT A VICTORY
Postal activists caution, however, against labeling Donohoe’s new plan a win.
“This is no victory at all. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re closing 3,700 or cutting hours at 13,000—you’re still cutting service,” says Tom Dodge, a truck driver at the Baltimore mail processing center and an organizer with Communities and Postal Workers United.
At most offices, service cuts will come in the form of slashing operating hours. Many retail desks could see their open hours whittled down to as little as two a day. Such drastic cuts will effectively render post offices inaccessible to “anybody who has to work for a living,” Partridge said. Towns with offices on the cuts list also have the option of replacing the office with a “village post office,” a retail desk located within a private business such as a gas station or Walmart. Village post offices can sell stamps and ship flat-rate packages, but can’t handle weighing packages, shipping express or registered mail, or selling money orders.
The desks are staffed not by Unionized USPS workers but by non-union employees of the business where they’re located. Processing plant closures also mean serious problems for customers. Dodge knows firsthand how problematic these “consolidations” are. In November, the Frederick, Maryland, plant was closed and its mail sent to the Baltimore plant where Dodge works, 50 miles away.
The facility was so ill-prepared to accommodate the deluge of mail from Frederick that soon 22 semi trucks full of mail were lined up outside waiting to be unloaded. Mail has been delayed, sometimes comically so. Customers reported receiving circulars for Thanksgiving sales as late as February. Even after mail was diverted to Virginia and D.C. facilities, postal workers received reports of people receiving coupons weeks after they’d expired.
As Congress stalls in fixing the financial mess it created, activists are targeting Donohoe, who has ultimate authority to stop the closures and cuts. Some hope actions like the Portland occupation may pressure him into halting the cuts, while others are calling for his ouster.
Activists believe that Postmaster Donohoe’s cuts, by increasing customer dissatisfaction with the Postal Service, fit in to his master plan to shrink it to a fraction of its current self.
Labor Notes Theresa Moran
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
CA Gov Brown Threatens ILWU Strikers
Anti-Labor Gov Brown Threatens Investigation To Attack IBU-ILWU Ferry Boat Workers Strike Action
By JOHN S. MARSHALL, Associated Press – 5 hours ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0K-dhahV5cGd5qHZlfL9RxU1WPQ?docId=9b7e7c83cf1a46b0b5197ab8496e4aff
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Thousands of people flocked to San Francisco's waterfront and onto Golden Gate Bridge on Sunday to celebrate the famous span's 75th birthday.
The daylong party attracted pleasure boats, tug boats and other vessels to the water as people on shore enjoyed a number of events stretching from Fort Point south of the bridge to Pier 39 along The Embarcadero. Many walked and biked across the bridge before capping the day by watching a fireworks display over the city's enduring symbol.
The bridge was shrouded in fog during part of the day, but skies were clear by nightfall for the 18 minute-long fireworks show.
"It's such an iconic structure, depending on the day or the hour, it just looks like it changes continuously," San Francisco resident Daniel Sutphin said as he walked through the Fort Point area with his wife and their three young children.
Since it opened in 1937, more than two-billion vehicles have crossed the 1.7-mile-long bridge named after the Golden Gate Strait, the entrance of water to San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean, and championed by engineer Joseph Strauss in the 1920s.
In a stark contrast to the thousands of celebrants, members of the group the Bridge Rail Foundation, an organization dedicated to stopping suicide jumps from the bridge, erected a display of 1,558 pairs of shoes, representing the number of people who died in leaps form the bridge since it opened in 1937. "It's a symbol of how deep and serious this problem has been," said Paul Muller, a spokesman for the group. "We're still losing 30 to 35 a people a year off the bridge," he said.
1 DAY STRIKE
Meanwhile on the water, Golden Gate ferries were running again after a one-day strike disrupted service across San Francisco Bay on Saturday.
Workers represented by the Inlandboatmen's Union walked off the job on a day strike, forcing the cancellation of ferries operated by Golden Gate between Larkspur, Sausalito and San Francisco.
The strike was called after nearly a year of negotiations over workloads and other matters, said Marina Secchitano, the Union's regional director.
California Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement Saturday evening, saying that he was appointing a Board to investigate the strike, which, he claimed, created a disruption to public service.
Secchitano disputed the governor's claim, questioning the motivation to call for an investigation after a one-day strike. "(This is) an action to try to silence us," she said.
"They're counting on this process to back our membership off the issue," she said.
Service resumed Sunday when workers returned to work.
Monday, May 21, 2012
NNU Nurses' Robin Hood Tax
Nurses Lead Chicago Rally for Robin Hood Tax
by Mike Hall
Thousands of National Nurses United (NNU) activists and others called for a Robin Hood tax on Wall Street in a massive demonstration in Chicago. Said NNU co-President Karen Higgins, during the rally in Daley Plaza: We are watching and seeing Wall Street throwing our money away as we see people suffer and die. It will not continue. We pay sales tax. It is time for Wall Street to start paying back what they owe the rest of the country and they need to pay sales tax. The small financial tax on speculation by banks and financial institutions would create jobs and rebuild the economy that Wall Street broke. As NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro told reporters: We want a financial transaction tax where we can restore our communities and jumpstart a new strategic approach to the economy invested in the people in this country.
Worldwide, we're joined in movement with 40 countries that are already part of the Robin Hood movement and the Robin Hood tax and we're bringing it to America. The rally coincided with this weekend’s G-8 Summit of the eight top western economic powers, originally set for Chicago, and the NATO summit immediately following. But the G-8 moved to Camp David, Md., to avoid the large crowds of protesters.
Tom Morello spoke and played. After the rally, actress and playwright Anna Deavere Smith performed, “Tell Us Where It Hurts, America’s Nurses Are Listening,” a theatrical piece derived from real-life stories of nurses and their patients gathered by NNU.“Tell me where it hurts? I'll tell you were it hurts," Smith said, her voice roaring from the stage. "It hurts when you see how privilege works...and when poor people die."
by Mike Hall
Thousands of National Nurses United (NNU) activists and others called for a Robin Hood tax on Wall Street in a massive demonstration in Chicago. Said NNU co-President Karen Higgins, during the rally in Daley Plaza: We are watching and seeing Wall Street throwing our money away as we see people suffer and die. It will not continue. We pay sales tax. It is time for Wall Street to start paying back what they owe the rest of the country and they need to pay sales tax. The small financial tax on speculation by banks and financial institutions would create jobs and rebuild the economy that Wall Street broke. As NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro told reporters: We want a financial transaction tax where we can restore our communities and jumpstart a new strategic approach to the economy invested in the people in this country.
Worldwide, we're joined in movement with 40 countries that are already part of the Robin Hood movement and the Robin Hood tax and we're bringing it to America. The rally coincided with this weekend’s G-8 Summit of the eight top western economic powers, originally set for Chicago, and the NATO summit immediately following. But the G-8 moved to Camp David, Md., to avoid the large crowds of protesters.
Tom Morello spoke and played. After the rally, actress and playwright Anna Deavere Smith performed, “Tell Us Where It Hurts, America’s Nurses Are Listening,” a theatrical piece derived from real-life stories of nurses and their patients gathered by NNU.“Tell me where it hurts? I'll tell you were it hurts," Smith said, her voice roaring from the stage. "It hurts when you see how privilege works...and when poor people die."
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Noam Chomsky on Occupy & Labor
The historic reversal that began in the 1970s could become irreversible. That’s where we’re heading. And the Occupy movement is the first real, major, popular reaction that could avert this. But it’s going to be necessary to face the fact that it’s a long, hard struggle. You don’t win victories tomorrow. You have to form the structures that will be sustained, that will go on through hard times and can win major victories. And there are a lot of things that can be done.
Toward Worker Takeover
I mentioned before that, in the 1930s, one of the most effective actions was the sit-down strike. And the reason is simple: that’s just a step before the takeover of an industry.
Through the 1970s, as the decline was setting in, there were some important events that took place. In 1977, U.S. Steel decided to close one of its major facilities in Youngstown, Ohio. Instead of just walking away, the workforce and the community decided to get together and buy it from the company, hand it over to the work force, and turn it into a worker-run, worker-managed facility. They didn’t win. But with enough popular support, they could have won. It’s a topic that Gar Alperovitz and Staughton Lynd, the lawyer for the workers and community, have discussed in detail.
It was a partial victory because, even though they lost, it set off other efforts. And now, throughout Ohio, and in other places, there’s a scattering of hundreds, maybe thousands, of sometimes not-so-small worker/community-owned industries that could become worker-managed. And that’s the basis for a real revolution. That’s how it takes place.
In one of the suburbs of Boston, about a year ago, something similar happened. A multinational decided to close down a profitable, functioning facility carrying out some high-tech manufacturing. Evidently, it just wasn’t profitable enough for them. The workforce and the union offered to buy it, take it over, and run it themselves. The multinational decided to close it down instead, probably for reasons of class-consciousness. I don’t think they want things like this to happen. If there had been enough popular support, if there had been something like the Occupy movement that could have gotten involved, they might have succeeded. (Remember Republic Windows and Doors).
And there are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them are major. Not long ago, President Barack Obama took over the auto industry, which was basically owned by the public. And there were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done: reconstitute it so that it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership, and continue on its traditional path.
The other possibility was to hand it over to the workforce -- which owned it anyway -- turn it into a worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a big part of the economy, and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need. We all know or should know that the United States is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation, and it’s very serious. It not only affects people’s lives, but the economy. In that regard, here’s a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple of months ago and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris, the same distance as from Washington, DC, to Boston. It took two hours. I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the train from Washington to Boston, but it’s operating at about the same speed it was 60 years ago when my wife and I first took it. It’s a scandal.
It could be done here as it’s been done in Europe. They had the capacity to do it, the skilled work force. It would have taken a little popular support, but it could have made a major change in the economy.
Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rail for the United States, which could have been done right in the rust belt, which is being closed down. There are no economic reasons why this can’t happen. These are class reasons, and reflect the lack of popular political mobilization. Things like this continue.
Toward Worker Takeover
I mentioned before that, in the 1930s, one of the most effective actions was the sit-down strike. And the reason is simple: that’s just a step before the takeover of an industry.
Through the 1970s, as the decline was setting in, there were some important events that took place. In 1977, U.S. Steel decided to close one of its major facilities in Youngstown, Ohio. Instead of just walking away, the workforce and the community decided to get together and buy it from the company, hand it over to the work force, and turn it into a worker-run, worker-managed facility. They didn’t win. But with enough popular support, they could have won. It’s a topic that Gar Alperovitz and Staughton Lynd, the lawyer for the workers and community, have discussed in detail.
It was a partial victory because, even though they lost, it set off other efforts. And now, throughout Ohio, and in other places, there’s a scattering of hundreds, maybe thousands, of sometimes not-so-small worker/community-owned industries that could become worker-managed. And that’s the basis for a real revolution. That’s how it takes place.
In one of the suburbs of Boston, about a year ago, something similar happened. A multinational decided to close down a profitable, functioning facility carrying out some high-tech manufacturing. Evidently, it just wasn’t profitable enough for them. The workforce and the union offered to buy it, take it over, and run it themselves. The multinational decided to close it down instead, probably for reasons of class-consciousness. I don’t think they want things like this to happen. If there had been enough popular support, if there had been something like the Occupy movement that could have gotten involved, they might have succeeded. (Remember Republic Windows and Doors).
And there are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them are major. Not long ago, President Barack Obama took over the auto industry, which was basically owned by the public. And there were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done: reconstitute it so that it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership, and continue on its traditional path.
The other possibility was to hand it over to the workforce -- which owned it anyway -- turn it into a worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a big part of the economy, and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need. We all know or should know that the United States is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation, and it’s very serious. It not only affects people’s lives, but the economy. In that regard, here’s a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple of months ago and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris, the same distance as from Washington, DC, to Boston. It took two hours. I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the train from Washington to Boston, but it’s operating at about the same speed it was 60 years ago when my wife and I first took it. It’s a scandal.
It could be done here as it’s been done in Europe. They had the capacity to do it, the skilled work force. It would have taken a little popular support, but it could have made a major change in the economy.
Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rail for the United States, which could have been done right in the rust belt, which is being closed down. There are no economic reasons why this can’t happen. These are class reasons, and reflect the lack of popular political mobilization. Things like this continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)