Thousands of CWA Activists Stand Up to Verizon in Philly
Nearly 5,000 workers engulfed Verizon’s offices in downtown Philadelphia on Saturday morning, demanding that the company stop its assault on workers and bargain a fair contract.
The streets were filled with a sea of red shirts and chants. CWA International President Larry Cohen, District 2-13 Vice President Ed Moony and District 1 Vice President Chris Shelton fired up the people, and invoked the 37 IBEW and CWA members who were fired after Verizon workers went on strike last August.
CWA President Larry Cohen,standing with fired strikers, addresses a crowd of 5,000.
“Every day, especially this next week, think about your own life as if you’re walking in their shoes,” Cohen said. “Every one of these fired workers – they’re not giving up. They’re standing up, they’re fighting back. Can we do any less?”
One worker, Jennifer Travis, who worked at a call center in Pittsburgh, was fired after 15 exemplary years on the job. She told her story to 35,000 brothers and sisters gathered at the nearby Workers Stand for America rally.
“The company says that I assaulted a manager as he escorted a scab across our picket line. Those are outrageous and false allegations. And, together with my Union, we are fighting back,” she said. “But mine was not an isolated incident. Several of my brothers and sisters were fired or disciplined last
August for similarly trumped up charges. What many of us have in common is our highly visible status as union leaders and activists. It makes me wonder if the company retaliated against us in an effort to intimidate other members who would consider standing up for their union in the future. If that's true, it's flat out bullying, and it's disgusting.”
CWAers marched two miles through Philadelphia to join Travis at the rally, where sprinkler fitters, postal workers, teachers, and other union workers gathered at Eakins Oval in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Cohen told workers, “We’re not walking silently!” And block after block, stopping traffic in all directions, they shouted, “What’s disgusting? Union busting!” and “What do we do when we’re under attack? We stand up, we fight back!”
There, workers demanded that politicians on both sides of the aisle sign on to a new Second Bill of Rights, a list of priorities that workers want featured at the Democratic and Republican national conventions.
After a great rally, CWAers are on the march to the Workers Stand for America event.
“We built this country, we wake it up and we put it to sleep and it’s time to take it back!” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told the people. “Hard work alone has never led to decent wages and benefits and retirement for every American. It’s hard work and activism.”
And when Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz mentioned that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had chosen Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate that very morning, the crowd booed loudly.
"I couldn't agree more," she said. "What a devastating impact a Romney-Ryan administration would have for America’s working families. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are both top-down and backward for the American worker."
Friday, August 17, 2012
Construction Jobs at Universal
PLA for NBC Universal Redevelopment in L.A. Means 13,000 Construction Jobs
A new project labor agreement (PLA) between Southern California Construction Unions and NBC Universal for a major redevelopment of the company’s movie and television studios and the Universal City theme park in Los Angeles will create about 13,000 local construction jobs.
The PLA reached between the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and NBC Universal on the 10-year project in the east San Fernando Valley was announced yesterday.
PLAs are pre-hire agreements between labor and management that require all construction jobs be filled by local workers; include diversity requirements; establish wages and work rules covering overtime, working hours and dispute resolution; and ensure that safety guidelines on the job site are enforced.
A study last year by Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations School (ILR) found project labor agreements offer a pathway to the middle class by providing job opportunities to low-income communities, minorities, veterans and others.
The $1.6 billion project will include new and improved production and post-production facilities, new media-related office space and enhancements to the Universal Studios Hollywood theme park and CityWalk, along with hotels and retail and dining facilities. It also includes major investments in area transportation and mass transit facilities.
The 300-acre redevelopment project will create an additional 18,000 other jobs and help keep movie and television production in Los Angeles. The project is now proceeding through the environmental evaluation process.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
War on Unions Comes to California
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/
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/
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/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)