The War On Workers Comes to California, in Disguise
By: David Dayen
After the victory in Wisconsin, many wondered where conservative interests would strike next to finish off unions and permanently alter the power relationship between labor and capital. It appears the next step is California. In November, voters will decide on an initiative, Prop 32, that would “eliminate unions from having any voice in politics whatsoever,” according to one labor official.
In its simplest form the measure, often called “paycheck protection” on the right, would stop unions from using automatic payroll deductions from their members for political activity. Similar measures have been on the ballot before in California, and have been beaten back both times. In 1998, voters rejected Prop 226, and in 2005, they similarly beat back Prop 75. But those were frontal assaults against unions. The difference here is that the supporters have dressed up this initiative as a campaign finance reform measure that affects corporations and unions in equal measure. Prop 32 supporters call it the “Stop Special Interest Money Initiative.” Nothing could be further from the truth, says the opposition to Prop 32.
“The people who drafted this are the same people who twice before tried this and failed,” says Brian Brokaw, the communications director for No on 32. “They claim that it’s even-handed, in that it bans both unions and corporations from collecting political funds via payroll deductions. But corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political funds, they just use their own treasuries.”
It’s actually more insidious than that. The initiative has two parts. First, it bans direct political donations to state candidates from both corporations and unions. Neither side does a whole lot of that, as independent expenditures are more common in support of or opposition to individual candidates. But the definition of a “corporation” is made so narrow in the initiative language, granting a number of special exemptions to entities such as LLCs, limited partnerships, insurance companies, hedge funds, developers, Wall Street investment firms and more. “They carefully drafted this to exempt themselves,” Brokaw says. Any corporation could set up a shell company and continue the practice of direct political contributions.
As to why unions could not engage in such behavior, that brings us to the second part of the initiative. This is the payroll deduction part. As said before, both unions and corporations would be banned from using payroll deductions for political activities, yet only unions use this function. “Political activities,” incidentally, is so broadly defined, that it would include internal communications, i.e. unions talking to their own members and educating them about upcoming elections and legislative votes.
Unions can ask their members to voluntarily donate to political causes, say the backers of Prop 32. But the initiative contains an additional measure that requires an annual written authorization from each union member on even voluntary contributions. Unions typically have an automatic process to collect dues and use them in part for political ends. Now they would have to go through a time- and resource-consuming process of collecting all dues individually, getting written authorization for how the dues can be used, in such a way that would be logistically impossible.
“This attacks our ability to engage in politics from every conceivable angle,” says Steve Smith, the communications director for the California Labor Federation. “The whole reason to have a union is to collectively bargain. This would take political action, and say you can’t do that. In terms of those who would be able to spend resources on elections, it would be wealthy individuals and Super PACs.”
The intent of the law can be seen by looking at the leading funders who paid to get in on the ballot. So far, the leading funder is billionaire Thomas Siebel, the founder of Siebel Systems, since purchased by Oracle. Siebel, a funder of Super PACs and a huge Sarah Palin fan, introduced her at a 2008 rally with this bit of schmaltz:
“Sarah Palin has risen as if from some mythical kingdom of the north. She carries the flag of outrage for the rest of us: the employers who create jobs, the shareholders, the parents, the people who raise children … and the students, the future of America,” he said. “Sarah Palin carries the flag of outrage for each of us … who cries out, ‘We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.’”
Other funders all have companies that would qualify them for the corporate exemptions under the law. Jerry Perenchio, the founder of Univision, now has an LLC. Other funders include insurance company executives and Wall Street investment managers. “This is the least grassroots campaign in the history of America,” said Steve Smith of the Cal Labor Fed. “All of these guys are billionaires, trying to rig the system. If this goes through you open the floodgates for corporate and billionaire funding of campaigns.”
In fact, one of the driving forces behind the ballot measure has a particular history here. The Lincoln Club of Orange County, long a conservative powerhouse in California, has put up some money for the initiative. They happen to have been the executive producers behind “Hillary: The Movie,” which ended up becoming the impetus for the Citizens United decision. So the self-described backers of Citizens United are now funding an initiative purporting to get special interest money out of politics.
So far, mostly state money has gone to back Prop 32, and No on 32 has the edge in terms of fundraising. But it’s very early yet, and given that this plays into a national movement to constrain union power, we could easily see national money play here. “What keeps us up at night,” Smith said, “is the chance that a Koch brother or a national guy needs to drop some money and comes to California to bring it.”
Indeed, passage of Prop 32 would have a national impact. It plays into the recent dynamic of the rise of SuperPACs and big money at the national and state levels. “Without having a couple million workers pooling their money in California to counter-balance corporate cash, it’s not going to happen,” Smith says. “There would be a domino effect. If California falls, what chance does a smaller state have?” The goal, according to Smith, is a two-step maneuver. First, they pass this measure to de-fang union power and allow for corporate spending to dominate political campaigns. Then, the money flows into California, to elect corporate Republicans and Democrats and change the system from within. “We couldn’t fund anything to stop them,” Smith says. “You’ll see ballot measures stripping away the minimum wage, family leave. The electoral dynamic would completely shift immediately.”
With Prop 32 on the November ballot, it has the potential to get lost in the shuffle. It will be one of 11 initiatives before voters, and not the most high-profile one. Governor Jerry Brown will probably turn all his attentions to a tax measure, Prop 30, that is needed to secure the state budget. And there’s a Presidential election and a multitude of high-profile state races that will garner more attention.
But the No on 32 team, which is fighting this as the “Special Exemptions Act,” specifically on the grounds of how this measure makes a mockery of campaign finance reform by granting exemptions to all kinds of corporate actors, sees that as a possible benefit. “The fact that we will see such a disgusting display of corporate-backed campaign spending is good for us,” says Brian Brokaw of No on 32. “It will be an example of what happens when you take away transparency.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/12/the-war-on-workers-comes-to-california-in-disguise/
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
STOP Anti-Union Cal Prop 32
NO on Anti-Union Cal Prop. 32
Stop Proposition 32 - Special Exemptions Act -
the GOP's attempt to silence California's workers
Proposition 32 was put on the California ballot by Orange County right-wing activists, anti-union billionaires like the Koch Brothers and corporate SuperPACs. Proposition 32 would silence the voices of working people in California on all state and local issues.
At its core, Proposition 32, the Special Exemptions Act, is about worker payroll deduction versus corporate profits.
Most unions get dues through payroll deduction. A portion of those funds are then dedicated to politics. Proposition 32 says that if money comes into the Union via payroll deduction, it cannot be used for any political purposes – no direct contributions, no independent expenditures, no political parties, no ballot measures and no communications by the unions with their own members.
So, if Proposition 32 passes, our labor movement will not have any money to repeal it. We will have no money to fight "Right-to-Work" initiatives. We will be unable to stop attempts to eliminate workers' rights and protections.
If Proposition 32 passes, it will virtually eliminate all political activity by labor in California.
We can't let this happen. Start educating your coworkers, family and friends now.
Please watch the video and share it widely!
To stay informed, go to the website STOP the Special Exemptions Act.
Like Stop Special Exemptions on Facebook.
Follow Stop Special Exemptions on Twitter.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
LIBOR SCANDAL
LIBOR: The Latest in Wall Street Tactics to Get Rich at all Costs
Scandals in the financial press do not die. They are replaced by new ones. The latest in the ever-growing list of ways the Wall Street elite has found to make sure they get rich at all costs is the so-called “LIBOR scandal.”
LIBOR stands for “London InterBank Offered Rate.” The British Bankers Association defines LIBOR as “the average interest rate at which leading banks borrow funds of a sizeable amount from other banks in the London market.
LIBOR impacts working people because it is one of the most commonly used references in setting the interest rates people pay on consumer loans such as mortgages, credit cards and student loans. This means that the interest rate banks charge on consumer loan products is often calculated as LIBOR plus an additional amount specified in the loan documents.
In fact, around $10 trillion in loans is indexed to LIBOR. When you add in all types of financial products including complex instruments like derivatives, LIBOR is the index for around
$800 Trillion in financial instruments.
Late last month, Barclays Bank and regulators in the U.S. and UK announced that they had reached a £290 million ($450 million) settlement to resolve claims that the bank had manipulated LIBOR. Barclays, one of the five largest banks in the world, regularly manipulated the rate in order to increase profits, minimize losses, and hide how weak it was during the financial crisis.
It appears that the Barclays settlement is just the beginning. According to press reports, other large banks including J.P. Morgan (Chase) and Citigroup are also involved in the investigation.
In other words, the daily prices of $800 trillion in financial products around the world were manipulated to increase the Bankers’ bottom lines. This is yet another item on the ever-growing list of ways the Bankers’ have rigged the deck in their favor.
The big banks have squandered the public trust. Our skepticism is constantly reinforced by new reports of scandal within the industry.
One way to start to restore public confidence in the financial sector is to put in place strong rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. There must be harsh penalties for people who break the rules. Also, Congress must give the regulators adequate funding, especially the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which took the lead in the U.S. on the LIBOR investigation.
This scandal also illustrates the power of the "too big to fail" banks and the dangers of allowing commercial banking and speculative trading to be conducted within the same financial institution. Strong rules implementing the Dodd-Frank provisions under the Volcker Rule, which prevents banks from engaging in excessively risky trading, and regulating derivatives are essential to prevent future scandals of this nature. And the too big to fail banks must be broken up once and for all by reinstituting the Glass-Steagall Act —the law that was in place from 1933 to 1999 which separated more stable commercial banking activities from riskier investment banking.
A final word on this as it relates to the upcoming presidential election. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is attempting to sell himself to the American people as a man who knows how to fix the economy because of his experience in the financial services industry. Time and again, however, we see that the financial services industry does not help real businesses grow and create jobs. It is a place where there is no distinction between money and values. Instead of wanting to change this culture, Romney has vowed to “get rid of Dodd-Frank”, the law put in place to rein in Wall Street excess and protect consumers after the 2008 financial crisis.
We need a President with true values. Not someone who comes from a culture of greed, where anything goes as long as the top one percent keeps getting richer.
by Heather Slavkin AFL-CIO
Scandals in the financial press do not die. They are replaced by new ones. The latest in the ever-growing list of ways the Wall Street elite has found to make sure they get rich at all costs is the so-called “LIBOR scandal.”
LIBOR stands for “London InterBank Offered Rate.” The British Bankers Association defines LIBOR as “the average interest rate at which leading banks borrow funds of a sizeable amount from other banks in the London market.
LIBOR impacts working people because it is one of the most commonly used references in setting the interest rates people pay on consumer loans such as mortgages, credit cards and student loans. This means that the interest rate banks charge on consumer loan products is often calculated as LIBOR plus an additional amount specified in the loan documents.
In fact, around $10 trillion in loans is indexed to LIBOR. When you add in all types of financial products including complex instruments like derivatives, LIBOR is the index for around
$800 Trillion in financial instruments.
Late last month, Barclays Bank and regulators in the U.S. and UK announced that they had reached a £290 million ($450 million) settlement to resolve claims that the bank had manipulated LIBOR. Barclays, one of the five largest banks in the world, regularly manipulated the rate in order to increase profits, minimize losses, and hide how weak it was during the financial crisis.
It appears that the Barclays settlement is just the beginning. According to press reports, other large banks including J.P. Morgan (Chase) and Citigroup are also involved in the investigation.
In other words, the daily prices of $800 trillion in financial products around the world were manipulated to increase the Bankers’ bottom lines. This is yet another item on the ever-growing list of ways the Bankers’ have rigged the deck in their favor.
The big banks have squandered the public trust. Our skepticism is constantly reinforced by new reports of scandal within the industry.
One way to start to restore public confidence in the financial sector is to put in place strong rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. There must be harsh penalties for people who break the rules. Also, Congress must give the regulators adequate funding, especially the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which took the lead in the U.S. on the LIBOR investigation.
This scandal also illustrates the power of the "too big to fail" banks and the dangers of allowing commercial banking and speculative trading to be conducted within the same financial institution. Strong rules implementing the Dodd-Frank provisions under the Volcker Rule, which prevents banks from engaging in excessively risky trading, and regulating derivatives are essential to prevent future scandals of this nature. And the too big to fail banks must be broken up once and for all by reinstituting the Glass-Steagall Act —the law that was in place from 1933 to 1999 which separated more stable commercial banking activities from riskier investment banking.
A final word on this as it relates to the upcoming presidential election. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is attempting to sell himself to the American people as a man who knows how to fix the economy because of his experience in the financial services industry. Time and again, however, we see that the financial services industry does not help real businesses grow and create jobs. It is a place where there is no distinction between money and values. Instead of wanting to change this culture, Romney has vowed to “get rid of Dodd-Frank”, the law put in place to rein in Wall Street excess and protect consumers after the 2008 financial crisis.
We need a President with true values. Not someone who comes from a culture of greed, where anything goes as long as the top one percent keeps getting richer.
by Heather Slavkin AFL-CIO
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Unions Fight Whirlpool Closure
Arkansas Whirlpool Factory Closes, Unions Say “Bring Jobs Home”
The factory had 4,600 workers as recently as 2006.
A group of 30 union members, elected officials and political candidates met at the United Steelworkers hall in Fort Smith, Arkansas, to voice support for the Bring Jobs Home Act, on Saturday, July 7, a little more than a week after Whirlpool Corp. closed its local refrigerator Fort Smith factory.
USW President Rick Nemeth said:
We want to work. We’ve got a lot of companies still here. Let’s keep them and grow on them.
Rick Belk, secretary-treasurer for the Arkansas AFL-CIO, said the factory closing cost the community decent wages. “If you just came to listen to speeches, that’s not going to be enough,” he told the Southwest Times Record. He urged those at the meeting to "tell their elected officials to stand up for the American worker."Among the unions present at the meeting were United Steelworkers (USW), AFSCME, Actors’ Equity (AEA), UAW, Fire Fighters (IAFF), Communications Workers of America (CWA), Sheet Metal Workers (SMWIA) and Plumbers and Pipe Fitters (UA). Representatives from the Crawford County Democratic Party and the Sebastian and Crawford County Central Labor Council also attended the Bring Jobs Home event.
The Bring Jobs Home Act—a bill that would stop companies from taking a tax deduction for moving expenses when they ship jobs overseas—was discussed as a piece of legislation that congressional leaders can immediately act on as a first step in a comprehensive plan to end incentives for sending good jobs away.
All over the country thousands of working families and their unions are urging Congress to take action on the nation’s jobs crisis, part of the AFL-CIO’s Bring Jobs Home campaign.
After the July 4 recess, Congress will take up the Bring Jobs Home Act (S. 2884), which will cut taxes for U.S. companies that move jobs and business operations to the United States and end tax loopholes that reward companies that ship jobs overseas. Working families also are pushing for a call center bill that would bar companies that send call center jobs overseas from receiving federal grants and tax breaks.
Along with building support for the Bring Jobs Home Act and the call center bill and for stopping currency manipulation, the AFL-CIO is calling on lawmakers to:
- Tax the overseas income of U.S. corporations the same way we tax their domestic income, so they can no longer lower their tax bill by shifting income and jobs overseas; and
- Push for fair trade policies that benefit workers—not just multinational corporations.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
CWA Phone Workers Protest TPP Trade Deal
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/.
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/.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)