Labor Union Blog

Patrick Young from the United Steelworkers, sends us this.

Three years ago, members of the United Steelworkers (USW) went to the bargaining table with the big oil companies to negotiate changes to health and safety programs at oil refineries that would keep workers safe.  Across the board, the industry said, “No.”  They weren’t interested in bargaining meaningful and enforceable improvements to refinery safety.

In the next three years, 18 oil workers died on the job, dozens of others suffered life-altering injuries and countless others have likely suffered from chronic occupational diseases due to work-related
exposures.   It’s become pretty apparent that health and safety in the oil sector is out of control.

This month, the 30,000 members of the USW in the oil sector are returning to the bargaining table with the oil industry.  They’re not willing to let another 18 workers die on the job.

Oil workers are demanding some small changes that won’t cost the companies much at all, but they’ll go a long way in keeping workers and refinery communities safe.  They’re asking for the right to stop unsafe work, safe staffing levels at refineries, a safety representative who is responsible for ensuring that refineries are safe, and that the companies properly inspect and maintain oil refineries and
equipment.

Union leaders and members know that to win these improvements at the bargaining table, we need support from refinery communities and consumers.  So on Jan, 21, members of the USW took to the streets across the country to visit gas stations to talk to drivers and community members about safety issues in oil refineries.

Oil workers in 20 communities across the country visited more than 50 gas stations to talk with consumers in refinery communities about issues that impact everyone.

“People need to buy gas, people need to sell gas,” said Gary Beevers, the Steelworkers’ International Vice President for Oil Bargaining.

Most of these gas stations are owned by small business owners, people in our communities.  We don’t want to hurt them, we want to get the word out about refinery safety and the gas pump is a great place to talk to people about safety.

Workers joined actions in Texas, Louisiana Utah, Illinois, Washington, California, Pennsylvania and other areas across the country.

USW members also took their message directly to top management at the big oil companies.  USW
Local 5, which represents refinery workers at the Chevron, Shell, and Tesoro refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, held a rally at Chevron’s corporate headquarters in San Ramon, Calif. They were joined by California State Senator Loni Hancock and members of the Richmond community—where Chevron’s Bay Area refinery is located.

Steelworkers emphasized that refinery safety isn’t just an issue that impacts only workers–it’s an issue that affects the entire community.  BK White, unit chairman at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, said:

When these companies operate our refineries unsafely, everybody’s at risk—refinery workers and our communities.  We know that a serious explosion at one of these facilities could devastate an entire community.

Most union agreements between the big oil companies and the Steelworkers are set to expire at 12:01 am Feb. 1.  Over the next two weeks, USW members across the oil sector will be working hard to bargain a fair agreement that will help to keep workers and their community safe.

For regular updates on the Steelworkers’ campaign for safe refineries and good jobs in the oil sector visit www.oilbargaining.org, follow @USWOilWorkers on Twitter or check us out on Facebook.

Republican presidential campaign pyrotechnics can’t hide the record of a party that has turned its back on ordinary Americans. It’s worth remembering how, a year ago, the Republican-majority House of Representatives tried to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

What would have happened if they had succeeded?

• 2.5 million young adults would have no health insurance.
• 2.65 million seniors would have paid $1.5 billion more for prescription drugs.
• 24.2 million seniors would pay for preventative services they are getting for free.

And that’s just the beginning. A short report from the White House highlights how the ACA is making insurance more available and affordable for millions of Americans.

It’s good reading at a time when ACA repeal is still a GOP battle cry, with all the presidential hopefuls and most Republicans in Congress vowing to overthrow the law–and trying to scare voters in the process.

Check out the Center for American Progress’s animated video (above) explaining the benefits of reform. The video was developed by MIT economist Jon Gruber, an adviser on both the ACA and the Massachusetts health care reform program.

Brian Finnegan, in the AFL-CIO International Department, sends us this.

Vale, the largest iron ore company in the world with locations in 38 countries is one of six finalists for the Public Eye Award, which annually elects the worst company in the world by popular vote. The winner will be announced during this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It is the first time that a Brazilian-based company is in the running for the award.

Vote here. The deadline for voting is Jan. 26.

The International Network of People Affected by Valen nominated the company for the 2012 Public Eye Award, through the Brazilian organization “Justice on the Rails,” and in partnership with the international NGOs Amazon Watch and International Rivers. The organizations say Vale deserves the award because of its many detrimental environmental, social and labor impacts in Brazil and worldwide over the past decade.

Organizers of the award, Greenpeace Switzerland and Berne Declaration, say that the company’s participation in the Northern Consortium Energia SA, which is responsible for building the Belo Monte Dam on the Xingu River in the Brazilian state of Para, ensured Vale’s place in the list of six finalists in the Public Eye this year.

Vale owns a 9 percent stake in the consortium, which will be responsible for the forced displacement of some 40,000 people, directly and indirectly reaching 14 indigenous communities of the Middle Xingu, flooding and drying 668 square kilometers, and drying out 100 kilometers of the Big Bend River of the Xingu.

See the website for a summary of some of the social, environmental, labor impacts on the traditional peoples of various enterprises of Vale in Brazil and worldwide.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is urging the Justice Department to lead a comprehensive investigation with state Attorneys General to prevent banks from engaging in future unlawful and deceptive practices that could exploit homeowners and put the economy further at risk. From Trumka:

We need to hold banks accountable for the fraudulent practices that brought about the worst economic crisis since the Depression. State Attorneys General have been investigating bank fraud, and these critical investigations must not be undermined by a premature and inadequate settlement. We call on the administration to reject any deal that insulates banks from full responsibility.

We commend state Attorneys Generals like New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Delaware’s Beau Biden for their leadership and courage in calling for a real investigation and relief on a scale that helps the millions of homeowners who face a new wave of foreclosures.

The economy is currently weighed down by $750 billion in negative home equity, so relief on a massive scale is needed to lift home values and stimulate the economy by increasing consumer demand. A comprehensive settlement must force banks to write down underwater mortgages. A sum significantly larger than the rumored $25 billion is needed for the economy to grow and create jobs.

Specifically, the administration must stand strong against the Big Banks and insist on:

1. A full and thorough investigation into problems tied to the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, and
2. A guaranteed minimum amount of money set aside for reducing the mortgage principal of “underwater” homeowners in key states impacted by the foreclosure crisis.

This is an opportunity for the administration to demonstrate leadership and show that it has the political will to do what’s right for homeowners and right for our economy.

When workers have paid family leave, especially after childbirth, they’re more likely to stay in the workforce and significantly less likely to require public assistance, according to a new report from the National Partnership for Women & Families. In fact, they’re even more likely to receive salary increases.

That’s good for everybody, the authors say, including both taxpayers and businesses, which reap a more stable workforce when paid family leave is offered.

Today, nearly three-fourths of children live in homes where the adults who care for them work outside the home. Workers in jobs that have paid holidays and vacation time often cobble together those benefits in order to take care of a newborn or other family members. But low-wage workers whose employers don’t offer any paid leave, say the study’s authors, are at risk for falling out of the workforce and onto public assistance rolls when family members require their care.

The study, ”Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public,” conducted by the Center for Women and Work (CWW) at Rutgers University, reports that:

[W]omen who take paid leave are 39 percent less likely to receive public assistance and 40 percent less likely to receive food stamps in the year following a child’s birth, when compared to those who do not take any leave.

Study co-author Linda Houser, an affiliate fellow at CWW, explained in a statement:

While we have known for a long time about the maternal and infant health benefits of leave policies, we can now link paid family leave to greater labor force attachment and increased wages for women, as well as to reduced spending by businesses in the form of employee replacement costs, and by governments in the form of public assistance.

The CWW findings led the National Partnership, which commissioned the report with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, to call for the setting of a national standard for paid family leave. National Partnership for Women & Families President Debra L. Ness explains:

At a time when governments are struggling with deficits and working families are struggling to stay afloat, this new study shows that allowing workers to take paid time off to recover from illness or care for their families saves precious government and taxpayer resources, while giving families the stability they urgently need. There couldn’t be a better time for employers and legislators to prioritize these policies.

The full report, authored by Houser, an assistant professor at Widener University, and Thomas Vartanian, a professor at Bryn Mawr College, can be downloaded here.

AFL-CIO Field Communications staffer Cathy Sherwin sends us this from the Indiana statehouse.

More than 10,000 working people are filling the Indiania statehouse to protest “right to work” for less legislation. Inside the House and Senate chambers, legislators are battling between the interests of everyday working people and those of the big corporations and out of state special interest groups who are pushing this deceptive legislation.

As the Senate prepares to vote on final passage of its version of RTW today,  the House will be considering key amendments today and the final version could be ready for a vote as early as Tuesday.

Big corporate dollars and national politics are threatening Hoosier wages and middle-class jobs. Worse, politicians like Speaker Brian Bosma and Gov. Mitch Daniels are playing fast and loose with the democratic process. They want to push our unions right out of Indiana.

But we aren’t going to let that happen.

Closing doors and cutting off debate is no way to represent Indiana voters. Our legislative process—and the upcoming Super Bowl—shouldn’t be hijacked by extremist politicians. Today, we’ve seen a stark divide between legislators working for lobbyists and special interests and those working for their constituents to stop the rush to ram through RTW. Tomorrow we must stand with the elected officials that are standing up for us.

This week, we’re taking our state back.

Follow us on Twitter with the hashtag #InUnion.

Donna Gatehouse, who blogs at DemocraticDiva and elsewhere on all things Arizona, sends us this.

Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio is a Tea Party conservative, and a prolific e-mailer.  For the past year, DiCiccio (who assumed office in 2009) has flooded the inboxes of thousands of Phoenicians on about a weekly basis with long-winded missives spinning tales of public-sector “union bosses” drunk with power and city workers enjoying lavish compensation packages while services are cut.  Here are excerpts from one dated Jan. 11:

Union Demands Exposed: More Money/Power

What you are about to read will create a significant stir at city hall, and I need you to pass this information to others.

Phoenix is about to enter another round of union negotiations, and I am insisting the public see all the demands and be involved in the discussions….While we still see our neighbors out of work, losing their homes and struggling to just get by, the government unions believe they are entitled to more. The private sector and private sector unions have seen cuts between 15-25% while government unions have seen an increase payout of 23%.

Today I am releasing the written demands from the unions along with a breakdown of what those demands mean to you in money and more power over your pocketbook.  Have no doubt the information below will make quite a few insiders upset because it exposes each demand by each union.

Feels like there should be a dun dun DUUUUUUUN soundtrack accompanying that, doesn’t it?  What Sal “exposed” there was negotiating information that was posted on the city’s website.  But this type of theatrics is what we’ve grown to expect from Sal.

DiCiccio also makes the outlandish claim that Phoenix employee compensation averages $100K a year to local reporters on a regular basis.  He is joined in the misinformation campaign by Phoenix-based conservative “think tanks” and pressure groups such as the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Prosperity Arizona.  DiCiccio was sort of an also-ran in Arizona politics until recently—a businessman who served on the Council in the 90s and then left politics for several years after a failed congressional bid in 2002 that cost him a lot of his own money.  He wanted to re-brand himself and be noticed but that’s not so easy for a conservative politician here, as we are a state awash in puffed up right-wing kooks with personality cults.

So DiCiccio adopted a crusade against “overpaid” Phoenix workers as his signature issue.  Through perseverance and bluster, he has carved out a niche for himself in the nation’s fifth largest city by emulating national Tea Party cranks such as Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker.  DiCiccio’s shtick happens to line up nicely with corporate anti-labor interests in Arizona.

The truth is that most Phoenix employees are not making anywhere near 100 grand a year and, as with most other public-sector workers in the United States, their total compensation is not better than what their counterparts in the private sector get, after education and experience are taken into account.  Phoenix puts all salaries, from the Mayor’s and Council members to social workers and landscapers, online.
If you were, say, interested in a “Caseworker II, Mental Health Specialist” position (which requires a master’s degree and relevant social work experience) you could expect a starting salary of $42K a year. You can see from the database that many, if not most, of the city jobs require a lot of education and specialized training.

DiCiccio’s self-aggrandizement and exaggerations have come at a harsh cost to Phoenix’s 15,000 employees.  I spoke with a friend who works for the city (he asked to remain anonymous due to his position) about it on the phone today.  He described an environment where city workers feel demoralized and under intense negative public scrutiny.

Guys who do hard, backbreaking work all day—I mean literally wading through sewage and things like that—they stop into McDonald’s after work and people are jeering them. Accusing them of being corrupt and overpaid.  These people have taken pay and benefit cuts already. But now they have to deal with having to defend themselves against being written up because someone saw them in a city vehicle.

There is nothing wrong with a city employee using a city vehicle to carry out his or her duties, of course, but Phoenix employees are under such a microscope, thanks mostly to DiCiccio’s inflammatory statements, that being seen in city vehicle stopping to get a hamburger for lunch is apparently enough evidence for an angry citizen to report him or her straight to Councilman DiCiccio’s office.

My friend and his co-workers crack wry jokes about what they had to do today to earn the “hundred thousand a year Sal says I make.”

It’s hard enough having people assume they can do whatever you do. We’ve always had to deal with that as city employees.  But Sal lying about how much money we make turns that perception into something really hard to overcome.

Despite DiCiccio’s hype and fear-mongering, Phoenix’s fiscal prospects are looking up.  A Jan. 17 news release by the city manager projected a balanced budget and increasing revenues for fiscal years 2012-13.  As for those city employees Sal alleges to be overcompensated, it looks like they really are doing a lot more work for less. According to the magazine Mayors & Cities, the city’s $330 million deficit over the past two years has been erased.

Over the past two years, the city overcame a $277 million deficit in fiscal year 2010-11 and a $59 million deficit in 2011-12.

“Revenues are improving and the city is successfully managing its expenses,” said Mayor Greg Stanton.  ”Our city is not projecting a deficit for 2012-13, and I am cautiously optimistic about this budget outlook,” he said.

The City Council will receive a briefing on the budget Jan. 24.  Newly elected Mayor Greg Stanton, who served on the City Council from 2001 to 2009, is a moderate Democrat who has a good relationship with labor.  At his inauguration speech on Jan. 3, Stanton made a strong statement clearly pointed at Sal DiCiccio:

I will not allow city employees to be used as political pawns!

The crowd went wild.

The new mayor was sworn in along with a brand new City Councilman, Daniel Valenzuela, who represents a working class North Phoenix district.  Valenzuela is a former firefighter and communications director for the Phoenix Fire union.  The Council is now center-left majority, which bodes well for an improved situation for Phoenix workers.  The mood of employees at the post-inauguration reception was positively ebullient.  But Sal DiCiccio has seized on a narrative that serves his political ambitions.  How far it takes him depends on how strongly we fight back.

This is a cross-post from Huffington Post by Stan Sorscher, labor representative for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace/IFPTE Local 2001 (SPEEA/IFPTE).

I work for a labor union in the aerospace industry. We are 100 percent in favor of trade. We make products the rest of the world wants to buy.

With increased trade we expect more prosperity. Instead, we see the American economy de-industrializing and job security at historic lows. So, what’s going wrong?

[The chart above] tells the story. Since the [North American Free Trade Agreement] (NAFTA) and [the World Trade Organization] (WTO) took effect around 1995, our trade deficit has widened steadily, except for the 2008 crash, which cut imports more than exports.

The language for trade is deceptive. We speak of “free trade agreements,” which sounds like freedom, and evokes the image of prosperity. Maybe we should call them “trade deficit agreements,” since that’s what they do.

We have alternatives. Today, many countries take a different approach to trade, and they run trade surpluses. Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Germany run trade surpluses and they have high living standards. China’s very effective industrial policies are the opposite of free trade. Their growth is phenomenal. It could be even more impressive if workers and communities in China had more say in how their gains were allocated. (Please finish this post, then get a cup of coffee, sit down and listen to this sensational radio piece.)

When America industrialized, we rejected free trade (trade deficit agreements), and our living standard rose dramatically.

Since NAFTA and WTO took effect, factories in America closed, entire industries declined, and millions of good jobs moved offshore. China’s industrial policies are a credible threat to our aerospace industry—one of the last bright spots in our trade profile. Technology and capital for new industrial capacity goes to China, India, and Russia, rather than Michigan, California or Pennsylvania.

In America, workers are pressured to accept wage cuts, loss of job security, elimination of pensions, and more shifting of medical costs. Maybe we should start calling free trade agreements “de-industrialization agreements.”

Why do we insist on an underperforming trade policy that enriches a few, and undermines civil society in America and abroad, while doing little good or real harm to workers and communities?

What if we could have trade AND prosperity? We should be thinking about different and better trade agreements, not more NAFTA-style de-industrialization agreements.

A different trade policy should reflect our own values and history. We forbid child labor and sweatshops. We have minimum wage laws and labor laws with basic worker protections that helped build a strong middle class. We protect clean air and clean water, which are essential for public health. We regulate food and drugs, which builds trust in the most basic interactions between businesses and consumers. We set a high standard (maybe not high enough) for regulation of banks and financial markets. As we industrialized, we chose policies and values for our own domestic economy that created a prosperous middle class and raised living standards.

Free trade policies create trade deficits because they are designed to protect U.S. companies who want to move production to countries that ignore human rights, punish workers for forming unions, silence dissent, pollute the environment, and put public health of their own citizens at risk. The Korea-U.S. trade deficit agreement specifically strips away legitimate and prudent financial controls enacted by Korea to prevent financial bubbles. Maybe we could call free trade agreements “agreements to undermine civil society at home and abroad.”

Each time we pass a new trade deficit agreement, we are endorsing bad behavior that we would never accept in our domestic policy. Worse than that, we are putting our own domestic producers at a disadvantage for keeping their production in America.

Remember: the question is not free trade versus protectionism. Members of my union and everyone I know, really, are 100 percent in favor of trade. We support exporting apples, wheat, airplanes and cars. We support importing coffee and flat screen TVs. We support foreign investment in new industrial capacity. We are 100 percent in favor of trade.

The question is good trade policy with an upward spiral, or bad trade policy with a downward spiral. Other countries are doing a good job of playing the cards they were dealt; we are playing our cards badly. We look like the sucker at a poker game.

American trade negotiators are working on the next big trade deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Already, multinational companies are demanding that worker protections in TPP be as weak as possible. They prefer no protections at all.

Respected mainstream economists argue that under our “agreements to undermine civil society at home and abroad,” low-wage countries will eventually enjoy prosperity, perhaps with civil unrest and violence along the way. Probably so. Wouldn’t we prefer that developing countries achieved a better life because of our good trade policy, rather than in spite of our bad trade policy?

When we ask for trade policies that encourage investment in our domestic economy, and set reasonable standards for human rights, labor rights, the environment, public health and legitimate financial regulation, we are helping ourselves by balancing the interests of workers and communities in America and elsewhere, with the interests of businesses and investors. That’s the way we built a strong middle class in America. It should be the foundation of our trade and economic policies.