The U.S. Postal Service’s plans to cut more than 220,000 jobs—that’s right, nearly a quarter million—and break a collective bargaining agreement has its employee unions up in arms.

The financially-strapped U.S. Postal Service revealed last week that by 2015 it plans to trim its workforce by nearly one-third, close 300 processing facilities and institute its own health and retirement system to replace existing federal programs, according to several reports. About 100,000 of the jobs are expected to be eliminated through attrition.

The proposal, which requires congressional approval, has drawn concern from unions and labor observers for its potential to further erode the middle class. And it’s renewed fears that other employers will soon follow with their own cost-cutting measures.

Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat—nor collective bargaining contracts?—will stay the USPS from the swift completion of its appointed rounds. (William Thomas Cain/GETTY IMAGES)

The decision comes after the USPS has suffered continuous declines in recent years due to drops in mail volume, advertising, an increase toward online communication and private competitors like FedEx and UPS. The postal service makes most of its revenue through postage fees and receives little support from taxpayers.

As a result, the agency posted $8 billion in losses last year and $20 billion in the past four. Moreover, the postal service expects to be insolvent by next month when the fiscal year ends.

The USPS has already implemented a number of cost-cutting moves, including plans to reduce their current career workforce of 583,908. More than 110,000 jobs have been eliminated in the last four years and the AP reports that currently 7,500 administrative staff jobs are also in the process of being removed. In June, the agency stopped funding pension contributions, which it says are over-funded. Almost 3,700 post offices across the country, mostly in rural areas, could be eliminated. Saturday service may also cease.

The agency also plans to reduce labor expenses. Last week, the Washington Post obtained “white papers” (PDF link) written by the USPS that seek to withdraw its employees from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, essentially because they view as it as too costly and want greater employee contributions.

The postal service also wants legislative changes that would allow collective bargaining agreements to be broken in order to implement layoffs. USPS workers represented by the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) with more than six years experience are protected. The National Association of Letter Carriers’s (NALC) contract also has a clause restricting layoffs.

There’s plenty of disagreement about whether Congress’ decision to nullify a labor contract would be unprecedented, and whether it’s merely a reflection of the current employment climate or a ploy to get an anemic legislature to find a solution. A USPS  spokesman has said that “everything is on the table.”

Bill Fletcher of the American Federation of Government Employees union tells the Washington Post: “When you break a contract, basically what you’re saying is that we have left the era of good-faith bargaining and negotiation and entered into employer unilateralism.”

University of California at Berkeley labor professor Harley Shaiken told Bloomberg News that the job cuts would be “politically damaging” to the Obama administration. He adds: “It would make the federal government the largest contract breaker in the country.”

The APWU, the NALC and the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association have opposed the post office proposals and viewed it as an attack on their bargaining rights. The unions say that labor costs aren’t the source of the USPS’s budget crisis.

The labor groups instead point to a congressional mandate from 2006 known as the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The measure requires the postal service to pay for the healthcare benefits of future retirees for the next 75 years, all within a 10-year period at the rate of $5.5 billion annually. It is the only federal agency with such a requirement. The payments started in 2007 and unions cite the pre-funding plan as the reason why the postal office has declared its inability to pay the future healthcare costs by September.

NALC President Fredric V. Roland wrote in an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun that the postal service would have been profitable during the downturn and losses would have been minimized if it weren’t for the pre-funding mandate.

The unions, however, are not asking to remove the legislative requirement but are instead pressing legislators to support a bill that would allow payments to be made using funds from a pension surplus. H.R. 1351, introduced by Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), would address the budget crisis, maintain bargaining rights and avoid further cuts, the APWU and NCLA said.

“This responsible business move, with zero taxpayer involvement, would leave pensions and retiree health benefits fully funded well into the future while putting the USPS budget back on sound financial footing,” Roland said.

Meanwhile, a job that had been a staple for the middle-class mobility is being threatened, echoing similar reverberations in the private sector where Verizon workers are currently on strike. The USPS is scheduled to begin negotiations with the letter carriers union this week and the smaller National Postal Mail Handlers Union next week.

*This blog originally appeared in Working in These Times on August 17, 2001.

About the Author: Akito Yoshikane is a freelance writer and reporter for Kyodo News. He regularly contributes to the In These Times blog covering labor and workplace issues. He lives in New York City.

Members of the UAW and Puerto Rico’s Servidores Públicos Unidos (SPU)/AFSCME Council 95 and other public employees celebrated May 17 when Gov. Luis Fortuño signed into law a bill reinstating collective bargaining for public employees.

Unlike legislatures in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, which are trying to take away workers’ rights, Puerto Rico’s House and the Senate passed this bill unanimously.

Gov. Luis Fortuño signs a bill restoring collective bargaining rights to Puerto Rico’s public service employees.

Says SPU President Annette González:

This law is very important for workers since in essence it includes two clauses that allow us to attain two fundamental goals: Restore the acquired rights through the restitution of collective bargaining contracts [and] negotiate the economic aspects that will do justice to workers and their families.

The law ends a policy imposed in March 2009 when the administration enacted a fiscal emergency law that mandated a two-year freeze on the economic clauses of all collective bargaining agreements. The new law extends the non-economic clauses of the contracts until 2013 and allows workers to negotiate for salaries, benefits, bonuses and other economic aspects.

This article originally appeared in AFL-CIO blog on May 18, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: James Parks’ first encounter with unions was at Gannett’s newspaper in Cincinnati when his colleagues in the newsroom tried to organize a unit of The Newspaper Guild. He saw firsthand how companies pull out all the stops to prevent workers from forming a union. He is a journalist by trade, and worked for newspapers in five different states before joining the AFL-CIO staff in 1990. He also has been a seminary student, drug counselor, community organizer, event planner, adjunct college professor and county bureaucrat. His proudest career moment, though, was when he served, along with other union members and staff, as an official observer for South Africa’s first multiracial elections.

A complaint issued on April 20th by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Boeing Co. is a victory for all American workers—particularly aerospace workers in both Puget Sound and South Carolina, officials with the Machinists (IAM) said.

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued the complaint, which alleges that Boeing’s decision in 2009 to locate a Dreamliner 787 final assembly line in North Charleston, S.C., represented illegal retaliation against IAM members who work for the company. The NLRB is seeking a court order requiring Boeing to operate the second 787 line, including supply lines, with union workers in the Puget Sound

“Boeing’s decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights,” said IAM Vice President Rich Michalski.

Federal labor law is clear: It’s illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity.

The decision by Boeing to locate the assembly line in South Carolina followed years of 787 production delays and an extraordinary round of mid-contract talks in which the IAM proposed an 11-year agreement to provide Boeing with the labor stability it claimed was necessary to keep 787 production in the Puget Sound area.

The board’s action reinforces the fact that “workers have a right to join a union, and companies don’t have a right to punish them for engaging in legal union activities,” said Tom Wroblewski, president of Machinists District Lodge 751 in Seattle, which represents Boeing workers.

Taking work away from workers because they exercise their union rights is against the law, and it’s against the law in all 50 states.

The board’s complaint comes in response to an unfair labor practice charge filed in March 2010 by District 751. Wroblewski added:

Had we allowed Boeing to break the law and go unchecked in their actions, it would have given the green light for corporate America to discriminate against union members and would have become management’s new strategic template to attack employees.

“A worker’s right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act,” the NLRB’s Solomon said.

We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.

About the Author: James Parks’ first encounter with unions was at Gannett’s newspaper in Cincinnati when his colleagues in the newsroom tried to organize a unit of The Newspaper Guild. He saw firsthand how companies pull out all the stops to prevent workers from forming a union. He is a journalist by trade, and has worked for newspapers in five different states before joining the AFL-CIO staff in 1990. He also has been a seminary student, drug counselor, community organizer, event planner, adjunct college professor and county bureaucrat. His proudest career moment, though, was when he served, along with other union members and staff, as an official observer for South Africa’s first multiracial elections.

This blog originally appeared in AFL-CIO on April 20, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

It’s time to return to Downtown Cairo. There are signs that the romance of the Arab Spring is already cooling off. Many activists who braved beatings and arrests to oust a dictator fear their civil society’s rebirth may be smothered before taking its first breath.  A proposed ban on strikes appears to expand the rollback on civil and labor rights that has steadily undermined this winter’s victory at Tahrir Square.

Activists fear that the pending draft decree, which would sharply restrict and penalize strike actions, would destroy workers’ leverage in pressuring employers and the government on wages and working conditions. Labor demonstrations were a critical weapon in the recent uprising as well as under previous authoritarian regimes.

Egypt’s leading independent labor organization, Center for Trade Union and Workers’ Services, declared on March 23 that the draft decree, though the exact wording had not been made public, echoed a sordid history of labor oppression, particularly a similar law that criminalized industrial actions which Mubarak invoked to suppress protests

The Egyptian workers have struggled for decades to maintain the right to strike. They paid the price when they were imprisoned, transferred or killed….

Article 124 of the Egyptian Penal Law which criminalizes the right to strike is a witness that the regime was reactionary and had the fingerprints of the 19th century….

Article 124 of the Egyptian Penal Law which is not different from the suggested draft law was a curse in the history of the regime in Egypt. …

The Egyptian workers did not start to move after 25th January 2011. On the contrary, they were on the vanguard of the revolution until it reached its summit and would not stop until the realization of the workers demands or at least the workers are assured that their demands are on the way for achievement.

Egyptian military police close in around remaining protesters in Tahrir Square on February 14, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. (John Moore/Getty Images)

The draft law is one of many troubling developments driving a renewal of grassroots activism, now that the revolution’s first wave is ebbing. Organizers launched the “Save the Revolution Friday” rally today, according to Ahram Online, to counter the governing elite’s plans to resurrect the old order under a renovated facade:

The purpose of the event, [activists] say, is to press on with the rest of the revolution’s demands, rid Egypt of the “institution of corruption” with all its figures and symbols and to challenge the counter-revolution initiated by the old regime which, they say, is playing behind the scenes to end the Egyptian revolution.

“The Egyptian people will not accept the laundering of the old regime and presenting it back to them in a new form,” wrote the group in the invitation, explaining that they insist on the complete removal of the remnants of Mubarak’s regime from every institution in the country.

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has called on the current prime minister, Dr. Essam Sharaf, to reject the anti-labor decree:

This will lead to a legal disaster by all international labour standards and it will disgrace Egypt in the view of the international community.

We urge the Egyptian government to withdraw the said draft decree, and we appeal to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces not to issue it. Instead we would like to see a development of appropriate mechanisms for  negotiations between the social partners.

This proposed decree is a serious infringement of fundamental trade union rights and as a member of the ILO, Egypt is bound by international treaties, and we remind you that your government must fulfil its obligations and respect trade union rights.

But an appeal to international law is easily silenced under the imposition of “emergency” authority. With the entire political system in flux, the military has begun to mobilize against activists under the pretext of maintaining order, putting the revolution itself at risk of being co-opted or  dismantled in the “reform” process.

Now is the time to rethink civil society’s hierarchy of needs. Will embattled Egyptians slip back into conservative “stability” at the price of autocracy? Or will people’s movements plow forward by establishing human rights, building workplace democracy, and breaking the corrupt ties between capital and the state?

Modern Egypt has undergone many uprisings, spurred by anti-colonialism, pan-Arab nationalism, populism, and now, nonviolent democratic ideals. Still, past upheavals failed to yield true economic equity. That kind of revolution requires a political consciousness that directly challenges conventional premises of economic growth and “development.”

Yet in neighboring Tunisia, an awakening in the labor movement may be underway. As Seth Sandronsky reported recently, the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT) has taken a leading role in both the overthrow of the old regime and the formation of a democratic government, and recently have begun networking with U.S. unions. Last month Tunisia also hosted the launch of the Arab Women’s Trade Union Network. The coalition focuses on the nexus of gender inequality and labor rights in Arab societies, where women’s oppression is compounded by economic exploitation.

So there’s a lot of work left to do for the global labor movement in the emerging political structures of Egypt and Tunisia—and all the other countries in the throes of political upheaval. And activists can’t do it without securing the power of independent collective action.

Egypt’s is not the only government that has sought to preempt the power to strike and protest through legislation. According to the ITUC’s 2010 Survey of Trade Union Rights:

Severe restrictions or outright prohibition of strikes also exists in a large number of countries. Furthermore, complex procedural requirements, imposition of compulsory arbitration and the use of excessively broad definitions of “essential services” provisions often make the exercise of trade union rights impossible in practice, depriving workers of their legitimate rights to union representation and participation in industrial action.

Egypt’s democratic vision turns on the struggles for both social and economic justice, and the power to strike is the focal point where labor and civil rights converge. The country’s workers face a process of social democratization that even “developed” democracies haven’t realized (see Wisconsin). The world is dotted with Liberation Squares, where the arc of revolution, or counterrevolution, is measured in the strength of labor.

About the Author: Michelle Chen’s work has appeared in AirAmerica, Extra!, Colorlines and Alternet, along with her self-published zine, cain. She is a regular contributor to In These Times’ workers’ rights blog, Working In These Times, and is a member of the In These Times Board of Editors. She also blogs at Colorlines.com. She can be reached at michellechen @ inthesetimes.com.

This blog originally appeared In These Times on April 10, 2011. Reprinted with Permission.

After many months of bargaining, UNITEHERE! and Hilton Worldwide have reached tentative agreements at hotels in three major markets—Chicago, San Francisco and Honolulu. The tentative agreements cover nearly 4,000 workers.

While terms of the settlements vary in each city, the contracts include wage increases, improved job stability language and reduced workloads for housekeeping staff and others. Significantly, the new contracts also preserve low-cost, high-quality health care and pension benefits for Hilton workers and their families at a time when, nationwide, these employee benefits are being cut.

UNITEHERE! President John Wilhelm said in a statement:

We are pleased to have achieved a fair settlement for all sides—one that allows workers to move forward and share in the robust recovery that the hotel industry is experiencing.

The contracts for Hilton workers expired in Chicago and San Francisco in August 2009 and in Hawaii in June 2010. Bargaining continues for contracts at other hotel chains, affecting thousands more workers in those three cities and several other cities across North America.

Nationwide, the hotel industry is already rebounding faster and stronger than expected. PKF Hospitality projects that hotel revenues will rise an average of 8 percent annually from 2010 through 2014.

This blog originally appeared in blog.aflcio.org on March 7, 2011. Reprinted with Permission.

About the Author: James Parks first encounter with unions was at Gannett’s newspaper in Cincinnati when his colleagues in the newsroom tried to organize a unit of The Newspaper Guild. He saw firsthand how companies pull out all the stops to prevent workers from forming a union. He is a journalist by trade, and has worked for newspapers in five different states before joining the AFL-CIO staff in 1990. He also has been a seminary student, drug counselor, community organizer, event planner, adjunct college professor and county bureaucrat. His proudest career moment, though, was when he served, along with other union members and staff, as an official observer for South Africa’s first multiracial elections.

I’ve been following this from a far–not because I like the sport (I don’t)–but it is a fight that is a tough one for the workers.

At the brink of an all-out labor war Thursday, the NFL players union weighed an 11th hour-proposal by National Football League owners designed to keep the two sides at the bargaining table. The sides were considering extending a midnight deadline for the expiration of the current collective-bargaining agreement.

At stake was the future of the world’s most successful professional-sports league, a $9 billion annual juggernaut now threatened by the sort of deep-seeded labor strife that has caused months-long work stoppages and billions of dollars in losses for professional baseball, hockey and basketball in the U.S.

During a 10th day of talks mediated by George Cohen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, the two sides discussed extending the current CBA, a move that would prevent what could become a lengthy and ugly litigation. If the talks break down, the National Football League Players Association is expected to to decertify their union, a move that opens up the door for the players to file an antitrust suit against the owners if a lockout ensues.

It has always been even harder for sports figures compared to other workers (harder than it is for public workers too!) to generate a lot of sympathy among the public for a strike–but the truth is this a battle between big corporations and their workers. But, football players are slightly different:

The public tends to be sympathetic to the players. Most fans are well aware that football players — unlike many other well-paid athletes — put their health and safety at risk every time they step on the field. They know that NFL careers are short. That the contracts are, for the most part, not guaranteed. If the public chooses sides, it will likely be with the players.

This diary is the contents of an email widely distributed by Cynthia Koebert. It was written by her mother Jo Koebert to her brother. Permission of both Koeberts to distribute has been granted.

Here are the words of Jo Koebert:

I am a Wisconsin resident who was born and raised in Milwaukee. I come from a working class family, and although I am lucky enough to spend some of the winter in Arizona, I am deeply connected to my Wisconsin roots. As I watch what is going on in Madison right now, I think about what unions have meant to our family.

My father had no skills other than the willingness to work hard, but he made a living wage because of the automobile union. He didn’t get rich, but he was able to provide for us, buy a simple house and own a car. My uncle worked in a unionized factory, again with no specific skills, yet he had a steady paycheck and enough sense to invest and leave his wife a comfortable inheritance. Another uncle also worked in a factory under safe conditions thanks to the union. We became middle class because of unions and, of course, our willingness to get up in the morning and go to work. Several in our family worked for a time in a Milwaukee forge plant, where men worked hard, got filthy cleaning furnaces, but took home a living wage thanks to the unions.

When I was at the central office of Milwaukee Public Schools as an administrator and the teachers were on strike, I remember complaining about the power of the union because it was making our jobs harder. I also remember one of the decision makers candidly saying, “Jo, if they didn’t have a union do you know how we would screw them over?” The unions have been responsible for forming the middle class in this country, and our family has been the recipient of the fruits of their labor in negotiating contracts. Yes, there were times when they became too strong and the workers were as much at their mercy as they would have been from the company itself. Today, they no longer have that kind of power, but they do still give the little guy a voice. They are, in fact, the single most active political voice actually working on behalf of working and middle class Americans.

I realize that much of this has been forgotten by many people who are clamoring for the destruction of the unions. Maybe, as educators and as parents, we didn’t do our job well in helping our kids to understand the history of labor in this country. Maybe I needed to tell the stories my dad used to tell about what it was like during the fight to unionize when the National Guard was made to fire upon common men who were demanding to organize.

In Madison, the excuse for these proposed policy measures is about saving money, but it seems obvious to me that this is not true. When the unions made clear that they were willing to concede the salary and benefit reductions the governor is proposing, so long as they get to keep their collective bargaining rights—the lifeblood of union power—Governor Walker refused to negotiate. The true agenda is to get rid of the unions, which will eventually get rid of the middle class and the little power that those who are not in the corporate elite have at this time. I won’t be around to see it, but our young people have got to open their eyes to what is going on in this war against the have-nots, both in Wisconsin and on the national level.

We should not have to fight for PBS and NPR to be saved. We should not have to hear that a proposal to cut all federal funding to Planned Parenthood programs has been introduced. This is serious and the agenda is much more than budget balancing. To my own family and all the others in America who share a similar history: may you never forget your roots. I come from the working class and I am proud of the people I see in Wisconsin fighting for their rights.

Sincerely,

Jo Koebert

CODA:

I am the Jo Koebert who wrote the letter mostly for family about the WI situation. You may distribute it if you wish, although I don’t know that it will change anyone’s mind.

Anyone wishing to contact MS Koebert may email me at kber at earthlink dot net

This post originally appeared on http://dirtyhippies.org on February 24, 2011.

Posted by Kenneth Bernstein: Kenneth Bernstein is a National Board certified social studies teacher at Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt, Maryland, where he serves as the lead union representative for the teachers. He blogs as “teacherken” at Daily Kos and has written for The New York Times, Teacher, CNN.Com, and Huffington Post. He is a 2010 Washington Post Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a Republican-authored amendment to the FAA Authorization Act that would have eliminated the collective bargaining rights of baggage screeners at the Transportation Security Administration.

These workers, also known as TSOs, were granted limited collective bargaining rights on February 4 in a historic decision by TSA Administrator John Pistole, who was making good on a campaign promise by Barack Obama to allow bargaining rights for the nation’s 40,000 TSOs.

The amendment would have left intact the right of TSOs to belong to a union (12,000 TSOs are already exercising that right as dues-paying union members). However, the amendment would have outlawed collective bargaining, i.e., authorizing the union to negotiate on behalf of TSOs.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

The lead sponsor of the amendment was Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who argued that giving TSOs the right to bargain collectively could harm national security by limiting the agency’s flexibility. Perhaps he didn’t realize that under the terms of Pistole’s determination, a future TSO union would be barred from negotiating issues that directly affect national security.

Like all federal public sector unions, a TSO union would not be allowed to negotiate salaries. Pistole will not even allow the union to negotiate on basic issues like disciplinary standards.

On the eve of the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) took to the floor of the Senate to urge his fellow legislators to defeat the amendment. The senator argued that TSOs should be granted collective bargaining rights as a matter of national security.

He noted that a recent ranking of “Best Places to Work” put the TSA in 220th place, out of 224 federal agencies and departments. Turnover and injury rates at TSA are among the highest in the federal government.

“Low morale and high turnover at a frontline security agency are a recipe for disaster,” Harkin said. “TSA determined that collective bargaining will address those problems and improve the Agency’s ability to fulfill its mission.”

Harkin challenged the assumption that unionization is incompatible with national security, noting that most federal security employees, including Border Patrol personnel, Immigration and Custom Officials, Capitol Police officers and Federal Protective Service Officers have collective bargaining rights.

Wicker argued that TSOs should be treated like the CIA and the FBI, which do not have collective bargaining rights. This despite what seems fairly obvious: The job of a TSO seems to have a lot more in common with that of customs officials in the same airport than with that of an FBI special agent or a CIA operative.

The defeat of the amendment eliminates a major hurdle to TSO collective bargaining. TSOs are scheduled to vote on representation starting on March 9.

Lawmakers in several states have launched a broadside against public employees, aiming to cut their pay, slash their benefits, and strip them of their collective bargaining rights. Pivoting off the myth that public employees are getting paid more than their private sector counterparts, governors and state legislatures are scapegoating public workers for their states’ respective budget woes.

One of the biggest targets for these conservatives have been teachers. In fact, lawmakers in at least seven states have proposed stripping teachers of some of their collective bargaining rights:

WISCONSIN: Gov. Scott Walker (R), who threatened to call the National Guard on public employees who protested his severe budget cuts, has proposed stripping teachers of all collective bargaining rights except for the right to negotiate wages — and any increase would be capped even before the negotiation starts. Hundreds of Wisconsin high school students walked out of class yesterday to protest Walker’s plans.

OHIO: Ohio Republicans, joined by Gov. John Kasich (R), proposed a bill stripping collective bargaining rights from teachers, leaving only wages negotiable. The bill would also allow districts to unilaterally terminate collective bargaining agreements. Kasich said that if the state legislature doesn’t pass the bill, he will insert its provisions into his budget proposal.

IDAHO: Idaho schools superintendent Tom Luna (R) “has proposed legislation that would limit collective bargaining to teacher compensation, and exclude unions from deliberations over the design of education policies.”

INDIANA: A bill sponsored by three Republican lawmakers in Indiana would “remove certain items from collective bargaining negotiations, including teacher-evaluation procedures [and] teacher-dismissal procedures.” The bill, part of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ (R) education agenda, has already advanced out of one of the state’s Senate committee.

TENNESSEE: Tennessee’s state Senate Education Committee will vote today on a proposal to completely eliminate collective bargaining for teachers, barring teachers from having any outside representation. The legislation surprised many Tennessee teachers, as just last year they negotiated with the state (and made concessions) to craft a new system for teacher evaluation that helped the state win the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program.

ILLINOIS: Groups in Illinois are pushing Republican lawmakers to allow school board to mandate that teachers follow a particular contract, if negotiations are not completed in a certain timeframe, giving districts every incentive to stall and them unilaterally impose their own terms.

NEBRASKA: A bill filed by state Sen. John Nelson would explicitly prohibit the state from participating in collective bargaining; his gripe is that the state “when considering wage and benefit disputes, weighs what employees in similar jobs in other states are getting.” In all, nine bills before the state legislature deal with collective bargaining and the state’s commission that handles labor disputes.

FLORIDA: Gov. Rick Scott (R) wants to limit collective bargaining for teachers to wages and benefits, even though such a move would likely violate the state’s constitution.

MICHIGAN: Lawmakers in Michigan are attempting to strip public employee’s of collective bargaining rights, even though Gov. Rick Snyder (R) had previously said that such a move was unlikely.

These right-wing groups and lawmakers are using the guise of a budget crisis to push through changes to collective bargaining that have nothing to do with the budget. Through collective bargaining, not only can teachers negotiate a fair wage, but they can also ensure that work conditions are optimal and due process is employed when it comes to hiring and firing decisions. Taking these rights away will not alleviate budget deficits.

Of course, at the same time that they are using budget woes to justify attacks on teachers, many of these same states (Ohio, Florida, and Idaho) are proposing new rounds of corporate tax cuts that would blow bigger holes in their already ugly budgets.

About the Author: Pat Garofalo is the Economics Researcher/Blogger for WonkRoom.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. His writing has also appeared in The Nation, The Guardian, the Washington Examiner, and at New Deal 2.0.

This blog originally appeared in http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org on February 16, 2011.