Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Trade Deals Like TPP Encourage 'Business Decisions' Like This Heartbreaking One from Indianapolis

February 12th, 2016 | Kenneth Quinnell
Kenneth Quinnell

In this video, workers at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis react to the company announcing that it will ship 1,400 local jobs to Mexico in what they described as “strictly a business decision.” You can hear the heartbreak and outrage in the voices of the workers who must now scramble to figure out how to take care of their families. Carrier makes heating, air conditioning, ventilation and other systems. The layoffs are scheduled to begin in 2017.

Aside from corporate greed, the main reason that Carrier can get away with something like this is the major flaws that have been built into international trade deals like North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These kinds of deals make sure that these types of tragic moments happen more frequently.

First off, these deals provide companies that want to offshore to trading partners with extraordinary powers and legal rights they do not have under U.S. law–powers and rights that shift the balance of power further away from working people. Second, these deals put U.S. manufacturers in closer competition with foreign companies that pay low wages and don’t respect labor rights. This encourages U.S. companies to offshore in order to keep up with those foreign companies.

The third reason these deals encourage outsourcing is that they fail to level the playing field in terms of taxes. Such a deal could set a minimum level for corporate tax rates or create rules to prevent companies from gaming the tax system and pitting countries against each other. With those options left off the table, a race to the bottom is encouraged, where companies shift jobs to countries with lower tax rates, which, in turn, encourages higher-tax rate countries to lower taxes and the ripple effect those lower rates have on the economy and the government’s goods and services. A trade deal meant to create U.S. jobs would address this.

And lastly, of course, these trade deals eliminate tariffs in the trade zone, further encouraging companies to shift jobs to trade partners because corporations know they can ship goods back into the United States without paying tariffs, thus using the tariff cuts to increase U.S. imports instead of increasing U.S. exports.

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on February 11, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Kenneth Quinnell is a long time blogger, campaign staffer, and political activist.  Prior to joining AFL-CIO in 2012, he worked as a labor reporter for the blog Crooks and Liars.  He was the past Communications Director for Darcy Burner and New Media Director for Kendrick Meek.  He has over ten years as a college instructor teaching political science and American history.

Permalink


Why Shouldn't Education Be Free?

February 11th, 2016 | Paula Brantner

image1Why shouldn’t higher education be free for everyone?

Higher education is not a commodity. It is a social good. It’s increasingly necessary to get a good, middle-class job. A more highly educated workforce can be more adaptable and make the country more competitive. So why shouldn’t it be free for everyone?

The United States’ $1.3 trillion and growing student debt problem isn’t going away. Neither is the demand for highly educated workers, even while wages stagnate or decline. Unless something is done to lower the cost of high-quality post-secondary education and help those already dealing with student debt, we face a rather bleak future.

Fortunately, some policy makers seem to know this, though there are differences between the most popular ideas for how to best fix the broken system.

The differences between the plans largely revolve around one of the six principles behind the debt-free higher education movement: “Is the aid distributed progressively—investing most in those who may not attend or complete college, or not maximize their participation in the economy after college, due to student debt?”

In a political reality in which there have been massive cuts to funding for public higher education, with teaching jobs turned into precarious, low-wage work that makes it hard for teachers to teach, it makes sense to allocate student financial aid based on need as a way of leveling the playing field. Those who truly can afford to pay out of pocket should do so. This way, programs maintain funding and quality, while everyone is provided equal access to the public resource of higher education.

Or maybe funding for tuition-free higher education can come from a small tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, so everyone can go for free.

The point is that everyone should have the opportunity to access high-quality public higher education regardless of how much money their families have or don’t have. This isn’t just a moral argument, it’s an economic one: the more educated a workforce, the better off the economy is. Even workers with less education benefit from “education externalities.”

So let’s think big—how do we ensure every single person who wants to get an education can? That’s a challenge every candidate must answer.

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on February 9, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Sarah Ann Lewis, esq., Senior Lead Researcher, Policy.

Permalink


Londrigan: Judge's Ruling Against County RTW Ordinance a Victory for Kentucky's Working Families

February 10th, 2016 | Berry Craig

berry craigThis post originally appeared at Kentucky State AFL-CIO.

Federal District Judge David Hale’s decision striking down Hardin County’s “right to work” ordinance was a victory for Kentucky’s working families, said Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky State AFL-CIO. He continued:

These illegal ordinances would have affected all working people, union and nonunion, by decreasing wages, lowering median household incomes, increasing poverty and undermining workplace safety. In short, these ordinances are wrong. The courts rejected out-of-state special interests’ attempt to take over local governments by pushing a radical outside agenda.

In January 2015, nine unions filed suit against Hardin County’s right to work ordinance, arguing that federal labor law permits only states and territories to pass right to work laws. Eleven other counties approved similar ordinances and Hale’s ruling, in effect, invalidates them, too.

Both sides stated their cases before Hale in Louisville in August 2015. He ruled in favor of the unions on Feb. 3.

Londrigan continued:

We would like to thank all of the working families and elected officials that fought hard against these illegal ordinances. The Kentucky AFL-CIO and hardworking Kentuckians will continue to fight for fair wages, more good jobs and more investment in education—and fight hard against unfair, illegal and unnecessary legislation. It is unfortunate that out-of-state special interests wasted taxpayers’ money with these attacks on Kentucky workers by pushing a radical out-of-state agenda. Our mission is to improve the lives of all working Kentuckians and raise the standard of living for all Kentuckians. We salute the working people of Hardin County for taking a stand against out-of-state corporate interests.

The pro-right to work Americans for Prosperity Kentucky contributed a $50,000 grant to a legal defense fund for counties that faced legal action for passing RTW ordinances, according to Kevin Wheatley of cn/2 Pure Politics.

Buddy Cutler of Louisville, attorney for the unions, said Hale’s opinion was solid, well-reasoned and followed established law. “It is a victory for working people that honors Congress’ intent and implements the wise federal labor policy that companies and unions should be free to negotiate contracts without undue interference from local officials.”

Hale said the National Labor Relations Act “preempts the right-to-work, hiring-hall, and dues-checkoff provisions of Hardin County Ordinance 300.” He also ruled that “Section 14(b) is the only exception to NLRA preemption of the field of labor relations, and it does not extend to counties or municipalities. Because Ordinance 300 does not fall under §14(b)’s narrow exception, sections 4, 5, and 6 of the ordinance are preempted and thus invalid.”

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on February 9, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Berry Craig is an emeritus professor of history at the West Kentucky Community and Technical College in Paducah and a freelance writer. He is a member of American Federation of Teachers Local 1360, the recording secretary for the Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO, and the author of True Tales of Old-Time Kentucky Politics: Bombast, Bourbon and Burgoo, Hidden History of Kentucky in the Civil War, Hidden History of Kentucky Soldiers and Hidden History of Western Kentucky.

Permalink


This week in the war on workers: Chicago teachers protest planned cuts and layoffs

February 9th, 2016 | Laura Clawson

Chicago schools and teachers are once again under serious attack from Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, and once again, the Chicago Teachers Union is showing that it is a powerful force. Thousands of teachers and supporters rallied Thursday, with 16 people arrested, protesting massive proposed cuts and layoffs:

Officials with Chicago Public Schools said Tuesday they’re ready to cut $100 million from school budgets and force teachers to pay more pension costs after their union rejected the latest contract offer, ratcheting up the tone of contentious negotiations that have lasted over a year. […]

The latest flare-up followed an offer a CTU bargaining team rejected Monday, after both sides had deemed it “serious.” The proposal included pay raises and job security, but union officials said it didn’t address school conditions or a lack of services.

The teachers have authorized a strike, though that wouldn’t happen until spring if it happens at all.

? Weeks after the West Virginia Senate passed an anti-union bill, the state House followed suit. A PPP poll conducted for the state AFL-CIO found high support for unions and opposition to laws weakening them.

? A union has filed a National Labor Relations Board petition to represent New York Uber drivers.

? Speaking of which, New York Uber drivers are pissed, with good reason.

A crowd of 600 drivers gathered outside the Uber office in Long Island City, Queens, to protest a 15 percent reduction in fares last month, which also means 15 percent lower wages. That pay cut is on top of Uber’s 20 percent slashing of fares in 2014. All things being equal, drivers who began less than two years ago have seen their pay tumble a whopping 35 percent.

Actually, it’s not just New York.

Last September, Dallas-area drivers for UberBlack, the company’s high-end car service, received an email informing them that they would be expected to start picking up passengers on UberX, its low-cost option.

The next day, when the policy was scheduled to go into effect, dozens of drivers caravaned to Uber’s office in downtown Dallas and planted themselves outside until company officials met with them.

? Indiana repealed prevailing wage protections to let them lower wages on public construction projects … and costs have gone up since then.

Not your typical Alabama labor story:

The state’s largest employer – the University of Alabama at Birmingham and UAB Medicine – plans to raise employees’ minimum wage to $11 an hour beginning in March.

UAB employs more than 23,000 faculty and staff. The institution currently pays $8.24 an hour, about a dollar higher than the federally mandated minimum wage.

? For union members: seven steps to opening up bargaining.

?

This blog originally appeared in dailykos.com on February 6, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Laura Clawson has been a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006 and Labor editor since 2011.

Permalink


Colombia Must Protect All Workers

February 8th, 2016 | Brian Finnegan

The government of Colombia continues to allow employers to undermine workers’ rights and fails to effectively inspect and prosecute alleged violations of labor laws. Violence against trade unionists often occurs without any effective government response.

President Barack Obama will have an important opportunity to raise these concerns during Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos’ visit to Washington, D.C., this week. In unison with our partners in Colombia, the AFL-CIO supports the peace negotiations and again stresses that worker and human rights issues must be addressed to build a lasting and sustainable peace inclusive of the interests of all workers, Afro-Colombians and indigenous communities.

Any sustainable solution to the crisis in Colombia must include respect for workers’ rights, access to decent work and a commitment to shared prosperity. Real change requires a change in commitment and practices: the U.S. and Colombian governments must stop looking the other way when employers violate the law. We have shared these priorities with the current administration.

The armed conflict has been used by the Colombian government for decades to systematically deny basic labor and human rights. Since 2000, more than 1,100 trade unionists have been murdered and another 5,000 have received death threats by paramilitary, government and armed guerilla forces for exercising fundamental labor rights. Despite the commitments of the 2011 Labor Action Plan to increase legal protections for organizing and collective bargaining and to bolster formal work, little progress has been made. This is yet another example of trade agreements failing to live up to their promises for workers.

Years after Plan Colombia went into effect, the government of Colombia refuses to investigate violence against labor activists, allows employers to deny labor rights and neglects to inspect, much less prosecute, alleged violations of labor laws. Yet, the U.S. Trade Representative has not acted.

The AFL-CIO joins many civil society allies in calling on the U.S. government to fulfill its commitment to proactively monitor ongoing violations of the Labor Action Plan and broader human rights concerns. The U.S. government support must assist Colombia in building a sustained peace, inclusive of the needs of all Colombians. As presidents Santos and Obama meet this week, the AFL-CIO has communicated to the Obama administration our support for high-level engagement but also that cooperation between Colombia and the United States must address concerns that have been largely neglected over the 15 years of Plan Colombia.

This article was originally printed on AFL-CIO on February 5, 2016.  Reprinted with permission.

Brian Finnegan is a Global Worker Rights coordinator for the AFL-CIO.

Permalink


This Bill Would Force Large Corporations To Pay a Fine if They Don’t Pay Workers a Living Wage

February 5th, 2016 | Justyna Bicz

FullSizeRender (1)A group of Chicago-area progressive groups and unions are backing a bill that would punish large companies who don’t pay their workers a living wage.

The Responsible Business Act would charge corporations who employ more than 750 Cook County workers at less than $15 per hour fees for paying what advocates call poverty-level wages. Since it was introduced in October last year, the act has gained the support of unions and grassroots organizations fighting for economic justice.

Two actions in support of the proposed Responsible Business Act (RBA) took place in Cook County on Monday. In Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood, Organizing Neighborhoods for Equality: Northside, or ONE Northside, led a teach-in at their offices and canvassed outside of corporate stores. Supporters of the RBA including IIRON and the Reclaim Campaign held an action at a Walmart store in suburban Bedford Park, just outside the city limits.

The RBA is a county-level act and is sponsored by Commissioner Robert Steele of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. It currently has three co-sponsors: Joan Patricia Murphy, Luis Arroyo, Jr. and Jerry Butler; organizers say they also have two commitments to vote “yes” from Jesus “Chuy” Garcia and Larry Suffredin. Three more commissioners need to support the act in order for it to pass through the 17-member board. Monday’s actions called on 11th District Commissioner John Daley and 10th District Commissioner Bridget Gainer to back the bill.

At the canvassing event organized by ONE Northside, supporters of the RBA called for Gainer to co-sponsor the proposal. They engaged pedestrians outside of Target, Starbucks and McDonald’s—all corporations that would potentially be affected by the RBA.

“The CEOs of these big corporations continue to make massive profits while the workers, who are responsible for the functioning of the corporations, are forced to rely on public services to survive off their poverty wages,” said Eugene Lim, a member of the group’s Workers’ Rights Team.

Commissioner Gainer did not respond to a request for comment.

The Responsible Business Act would give corporations with over 750 employees a choice: either raise their employees’ wages to a living wage—determined by Cook County Chief Financial Officer Ivan Samstein at $14.57 per hour without benefits and $11.66 per hour with benefits—or pay a $750 fee for each dollar paid below the hourly living wage per employee.

For example, a corporation where 100 workers earn $13.57 per hour (one dollar below the living wage of $14.57 per hour) would have the choice of raising their hourly wage by $1 for each worker, or paying a fee of $75,000 ($1 times 100 workers, times the $750 fine). This fee is designed to supplement the housing and childcare assistance, Medicaid costs and other services out of reach for workers earning poverty wages. The fees would be earmarked specifically for public assistance programs and distributed by the county.

Seventy-five percent of the revenue would be placed into a newly established Family Sustainability Fund, 20 percent would go to pre-existing health care spending and the remainder would be spent on administrative costs. A nine-person commission would advise the Cook County Board of Commissioners on allocation of the collected funds.

Monday morning’s South Side action took place at the Walmart store at 7050 S. Cicero Avenue. About 50 people, including low-wage workers, students and members of IIRON, Reclaim Campaign, the Bridgeport Alliance and National Nurses United were present. At 11 A.M., the protesters entered Walmart, carrying signs and chanting “Hey you, millionaires, pay your fair share!”

Gianna Chacon is an undergraduate at Roosevelt University. She says her $10 per hour retail job at Marshalls isn’t enough to cover her living expenses. “These companies can afford to pay us enough to live on, but instead they choose to squeeze their workers and make a few million more,” she told the crowd.

The group brought with them a 3′ x 5′ invoice for what they say is the $33 million owed by Walmart to workers and taxpayers. The number is an estimate of the amount of taxpayer money that goes to supporting Walmart employees to provide essential services that they are unable to afford. According to a study by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the Responsible Business Act would affect 67 employers in Cook County and raise the wages of over 16,000 workers. The average increase would be $7.11 per hour, per worker.

Yamara Ayala, a mother of two and a home care aide for her father, said at Monday’s action that she has high hopes for the Responsible Business Act. “I’m hoping it does go forward because it will help so many families. … None of us are getting our fair share, and that’s what we’re fighting for.”

Monday’s South Side action was one of the first to target 11th District Commissioner John Daley, who has yet to pledge support for the Responsible Business Act. Tom Gaulke, a leader with IIRON and the Bridgeport Alliance, addressed Daley during Monday’s action: “You have the power to help us make large corporations like Walmart pay their fair share to workers and pay their fair share to our communities.”

Commissioner Daley did not respond to a request for comment.

If implemented, the act would incrementally raise the minimum wage that large employers are required to pay employees to avoid fees. The rate would increase by $1.35 per year, from the current minimum of $8.25 in Cook County, to a high of $15.00 over five years. The UIC study found that the Act could raise up to $500 million during the four year phase-in, and $200 million after it is fully implemented.

Emiliano Vera, a Northwestern University undergraduate and a low-wage worker himself, said at Monday’s action that “We need to speak up to challenge that blatant lie [that low wage work is justified], and tell the story that the real culprits are the corporations that refuse to pay a living wage.”

This blog originally appeared in inthesetimes.com on February 3, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Justyna Bicz is a freelance journalist based in Chicago, and an editorial intern with In These Times.

Permalink


Trumka: TPP Is a New Low

February 4th, 2016 | Kenneth Quinnell
Kenneth Quinnell

In a new op-ed for the Hill, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka explains the key reasons why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is bad for working people, both in the United States and overseas. Trumka describes the deal by saying that “the TPP is a giveaway to big corporations, special interests and all those who want economic rules that benefit the wealthy few.”

An excerpt:

We’ve been down this road before. The Wall Street and Washington elite always tell us that this time will be different. The truth is these trade deals have ripped apart the fabric of our nation. We see the shuttered factories. We visit towns that look like they are stuck in the past. We talk to the workers who lost everything, only to be told they should retrain in another field—but Congress has been slow to fund and authorize those programs. From NAFTA to CAFTA to Korea and now the TPP, these agreements have continually put profits over people. By driving down our wages, they make our economy weaker, not stronger.

In many ways, the TPP is a new low. A quick search of the agreement shows no mention of the terms “raising wages” or “climate change.” And by ramming through fast track legislation earlier this year, Congress effectively barred itself from making a single improvement to the TPP.

Working people deserve a better process and a better product. We understand better than anyone that the TPP is just another tool to enrich corporations at the expense of everyday families. We cannot and should not accept it.

Because it can’t fix the TPP, Congress has to take the step of saying to 11 other countries, “No, not this TPP.” Taking that brave step is necessary to create trade rules that lift people up, not crush them under crony capitalism.

Read the full op-ed.

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on February 3, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Kenneth Quinnell is a long time blogger, campaign staffer, and political activist.  Prior to joining AFL-CIO in 2012, he worked as a labor reporter for the blog Crooks and Liars.  He was the past Communications Director for Darcy Burner and New Media Director for Kendrick Meek.  He has over ten years as a college instructor teaching political science and American history.

Permalink


What Is “Economic Freedom,” And Who Is It For?

February 3rd, 2016 | Terrance Heath

Terrance Heath

The Heritage Foundation has released its annual “Index of Economic Freedom.” As America enters an election season increasingly influenced by anger at an economy rigged in favor of the wealthy, maybe it’s time to ask: What is “economic freedom,” and who is it for?

What does economic freedom mean to you, personally? Given that we only recently recovered from a serious national bout of “Powerball Fever,” it’s a safe bet that for most people it means not having to worry about having enough money. It means earning a livable wage; enough to meet basic needs, like food, shelter, transportation, and medical care. It means earning enough to support your family, and having leisure time to enjoy your family. It means being able to educate your children — or yourself — without putting yourself in hock with debt. It means having a fair shot at reaching the next rung on the economic ladder, and securing a better future for your children. It means being able to retire with a decent standard of living.

For the Heritage Foundation, “economic freedom” is “the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property.” Who’d disagree with that? However, the Heritage definition quickly moves from a focus on the individual to a society in which “governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.”

It sounds good, until you realize we’re not talking about the rights or freedoms of persons like you and me, but wealthy people and “corporate persons.” Heritage breaks “economic freedom” down into four pillars: “Rule of Law,” concerning property rights and “freedom from corruption”; “Limited Government,” concerning “fiscal freedom” and government spending; “Regulatory Efficiency,” concerning “business freedom”, “labor freedom”, and “monetary freedom”; and “Open Markets,” concerning “trade freedom”, “investment freedom,” and “financial freedom.” They repeat the word “freedom” as often as possible, but what do all of those things mean in reality?

If you’re an average worker, it means little to no “regulations concerning minimum wages.” So employers can pay you as little as they like. If you can’t live on what they pay, you’re free to try to earn more elsewhere. Good luck with that, because who gets rich paying higher wages than their competitors? Several of the countries in the Heritage’s “economic freedom” top 10 had the lowest hourly minimum wages, including Chile ($2.20) and Estonia ($2.70). Others have no minimum wage.

There are some developed countries with no minimum wage on Heritage’s index, like Switzerland (number 4) and Denmark (number 12, just behind the U.S.), but they tend to rely on strong trade unions to negotiate fair wages for workers.

If you’re an American worker, it means driving down wages with trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), that institute what Heritage calls “trade freedom,” defined as “the absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers” on imports and exports of goods and services. The top 10 on Heritage’s index is almost a membership list of TPP countries, including Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Australia and Canada.

It means there are few, if any, labor laws prescribing maximum working hours. There’s no limit on how many hours your employer can require you to work. It means you don’t even have a right to a two-day weekend.

It means there are few, if any, “laws inhibiting layoffs,” “severance requirements,” or “measurable regulatory restraints on hiring and hours worked.” In other words, forget about “right to work” states. It’s a “right to work” world, in which you have the right to work harder and longer for less.

It means no Social Security as we know it. In fact, it means no government programs, as Heritage’s index uses zero government spending as a benchmark. (So underdeveloped countries with little governmental capacity may receive “artificially high scores” for government spending.) The government won’t have anything to spend anyway, because “fiscal freedom” means a low top marginal income tax rate, and a low top marginal corporate tax rate. The lower the rates, the higher the “fiscal freedom” score. Serving as a tax haven for corporations and wealthy individuals seeking to avoid taxes back home, under the banner of “investment freedom,” can earn countries like Ireland (number eight on Heritage’s index) high “economic freedom” scores.

How does all this “economic freedom,” mostly for the wealthy and “corporate persons,” work out for the rest of society? According to Heritage, more “economic freedom” is supposed to mean less inequality. Yet, some of the highest ranking countries on Heritage’s index have the highest rates of inequality.

? Despite being number one on Heritage’s index, Hong Kong’s yawning gap between rich and poor has fueled protests, despite increasing minimum wages.
? Number two on Heritage’s index, Singapore has one of the highest rates of inequality, leading to calls for the government to take action.
? The “miracle of Chile” (number seven on Heritage’s index), so christened by conservative economist Milton Friedman, has lost its shine as Chile’s plantation economy has made it one of the countries with the most serious inequality problems.

Every year Heritage comes out with a new “economic freedom” index, and every year the questions behind the numbers is the same: What is economic freedom, and who is it for? The answer remains the same, too. Heritage’s “economic freedom” is freedom for the wealthy and giant corporations to further consolidate their wealth and power, and not much else.

This blog originally appeared in ourfuture.org on February 2, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Terrance Heath is the Online Producer at Campaign for America’s Future. He has consulted on blogging and social media consultant for a number of organizations and agencies. He is a prominent activist on LGBT and HIV/AIDS issues.

Permalink


Detroit teachers sue school district to fix crumbling schools and fire emergency manager

February 2nd, 2016 | Laura Clawson

The Detroit Federation of Teachers joined with some parents Thursday to sue the school district over conditions in the schools and call for the dismissal of state-appointed Emergency Manager Darnell Earley.

“Asking a child to learn or a teacher to instruct with steam coming from their mouth due to the cold in the classroom, in vermin infested rooms, with ceiling tiles falling from above, with buckets to catch the rain water falling from above, or in buildings that are literally making them sick is more than what is legally or constitutionally tolerable,” the lawsuit says.

The complaint also alleges that Earley, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder and has sweeping powers, has neglected his duties and made the district’s financial problems worse. Officials have said DPS is in danger of running out of cash in April or May.

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to remove Earley and restore local control to the school district. They also want the district to be ordered to fix the building problems, promptly investigate complaints and create a long-term capital plan.

Earlier in the week, a Detroit student explained why she supports her teachers:

Trying to silence teachers by threatening to take away their jobs is childish and unfair to my education. When you have lost these teachers, how will you replace them? Who wants to work in a school district where ceilings fall on student’s heads, and mushrooms grow in the hallways? I did not have an English teacher for the first
four months of school, and last year I did not have a French teacher the whole first semester. With a history of all these vacancies, how will firing 23 teachers help your case at all. […]

Legislators, the Emergency Manager and others have said that teachers are hindering our education by doing these sickouts, but the reality is that none of you live in Detroit, and none of you have children who go to a DPS school. None of you have to come to school every day and share books (if we even have books), or be in the middle of doing work and the lights cut off. None of you have to worry about your safety everyday of your life, or walk past mushrooms growing in the hallway. None of you have to skip lunch every day because the food is moldy, and the milk is old. None of you experience what we experience, and until you have, you have no right to speak on anything happening in our district. Our teachers are doing what is best for us, and my education is not being hindered any more than it was when I went a whole Semester without a French/English teacher.

When you’re talking about kids facing unsanitary conditions and hunger and being deprived of a chance at an education, you find the money to fix it. Just like you don’t poison a city’s water supply. Except if you’re Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his cadre of emergency managers, apparently.

This blog originally appeared in dailykos.com on January 28, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Laura Clawson has been a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006 and Labor editor since 2011.

Permalink


NLRB Judge Rules Walmart Wrongly Fired Strikers

February 1st, 2016 | Kenneth Quinnell
Kenneth Quinnell

An administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Walmart retaliated against workers for participating in strikes. Walmart claimed that the workers’ actions were not protected under the National Labor Relations Act and that it was legitimate to fire the employees for violating the company’s attendance policy. Judge Geoffrey Carter ruled against Walmart.

The ruling says that Walmart must reinstate 16 former employees with back pay and must hold meetings in 29 stores to inform workers of their right to strike and that strikes are protected under the NLRA.

Jess Levin, communications director for Making Change at Walmart, applauded the ruling:

Today’s decision proves beyond doubt that Walmart unlawfully fired, threatened and disciplined hardworking employees simply for speaking out. Not only is this a huge victory for those workers and Walmart workers everywhere who continue to stand up for better working conditions, but it sends a message to Walmart that its workers cannot be silenced. We will continue to fight to change Walmart for the better.

Read the full ruling.

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on January 29, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Kenneth Quinnell is a long time blogger, campaign staffer, and political activist.  Prior to joining AFL-CIO in 2012, he worked as a labor reporter for the blog Crooks and Liars.  He was the past Communications Director for Darcy Burner and New Media Director for Kendrick Meek.  He has over ten years as a college instructor teaching political science and American history.

Permalink



Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog