Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘labor union’

Trade Unions Demand Governments Address Gender-based Violence in the World of Work

Monday, December 2nd, 2019

Image result for cassandra waters afl cio

This week marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and trade unions around the world are demanding governments ratify and implement International Labor Organization Convention 190 (C190), on ending violence and harassment in the world of work.

Read the statement from the International Trade Union Confederation in EnglishSpanish or French.

C190 was adopted last June at the International Labor Organization. The AFL-CIO and trade unions around the world campaigned for more than a decade to win this important new global standard, and now are leading the fight to see its framework adopted by governments and employers.

Gender-based violence and harassment is a particular threat to women, LGBTQ workers and other marginalized groups. Homicide is one of the leading causes of death on the job among women in the United States, accounting for almost a quarter of workplace deaths among women, while it accounts for only 8% of workplace deaths among men. It is also a particular threat to workers in low-wage, precarious working arrangements, as poverty and marginalization can prevent workers from escaping or challenging dangerous conditions.

The C190 framework emphasizes that everyone has the fundamental right to be free from violence and harassment at work, and requires governments adopt an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach to end it. C190 requires governments and employers address the root causes of gender-based violence at work, including discrimination and unequal power relationships. Violence is a tool that both reflects and reinforces a gendered power hierarchy at work and in society, and ending violence requires allowing women workers to take collective action to confront this hierarchy directly.

C190 also calls for investigating sectors and occupations that are more likely to experience violence and harassment. In the United States, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation to adopt specific violence protections for nurses, medical assistants, emergency responders and social workers. These workers are predominantly women, and they face extremely high rates of violence on the job. The law would require employers to develop an enforceable, comprehensive violence protection program in U.S. workplaces.

This article was originally published at Aflcio on November 27, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author:  Cassandra Waters is the global worker rights specialist at the AFL-CIO.

 

 

 

Trump’s SEC Chairman Proposes to Disenfranchise Investors and Reduce Shareholder Democracy

Friday, November 8th, 2019

Image result for Brandon Rees"In a partisan 3-2 vote, the Trump administration’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed to curtail the rights of investors to file proposals for a vote at company annual meetings. If adopted, these changes will hinder shareholder proposals by union members and their pension plans to hold corporate management accountable.

“We strongly oppose the SEC’s shareholder proposal rule changes that will limit the ability of working people and their pension plans to have a voice in the companies that we invest in,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (UMWA). The proposed changes include dramatic increases in stock ownership requirements and vote resubmission requirements.

Corporate CEOs of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce have long wished for these changes to the shareholder proposal rule. In a 2017 letter to the SEC, the AFL-CIO showed how these proposed rule changes will undermine efforts to increase corporate responsibility for environmental, social and governance issues.

“The right to petition corporate management by filing shareholder proposals is an integral part of shareholder democracy in the United States,” Trumka explained. “The SEC should protect the rights of working people as the real main street investors, not the interests of overpaid and unaccountable corporate CEOs.”

For more information about the efforts of SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, nominated by President Trump, to disenfranchise investors and reduce shareholder democracy by curtailing the shareholder proposal rule, please visit the Investor Rights Forum.

This article was originally published at AFL-CIO on November 5, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Brandon Rees is the Deputy Director of Corporations and Capital Markets for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). The AFL-CIO is a federation of 55 national and international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working men and women.

U.S. Steel lays off Michigan workers a week after Trump bragged 'business is thriving'

Wednesday, August 21st, 2019

Just last week, Donald Trump was bragging about the success of his steel tariffs. This week, U.S. Steel is laying off workers in Michigan—temporarily, but for as long as six months.

“Steel was dead. Your business was dead. Okay? I don’t want to be overly crude. Your business was dead. And I put a little thing called ‘a 25 percent tariff’ on all of the dumped steel all over the country. And now your business is thriving” Trump said, in the same Monaca, Pennsylvania, speech at which he had a coerced audience of workers told they’d lose pay if they didn’t attend. “And I’ll tell you what,” he added later, “Those steel mills—U.S. Steel and all of them, all of them—they’re expanding all over the place. New mills. New expansions. We hadn’t have—we didn’t have a new mill built in 30 years, and now we have many of them going up.”

This is, of course, false. There are not “many” new steel mills going up (and on top of it, there had been at least one built within the last 30 years). U.S. Steel is investing $1 billion in its Mon Valley Works facilities, but there’s no guarantee of new jobs there.

And now U.S. Steel is idling blast furnaces and laying off workers—temporarily, we very much hope—as steel prices have fallen significantly from a 2018 peak shortly after Trump announced his tariffs. The steel tariffs did at least temporarily lead to increased investment and jobs. But of course Trump had to lie about the scale of the improvements and you’re unlikely to see him admitting to the slump that’s hitting now.

This blog was originally published at Daily Kos on August 20, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at Daily Kos.

Why Join a Labor Union? The Key Benefits Workers May Not Know About

Monday, August 19th, 2019

Unions are struggling in this country. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that the percent of U.S. wage and salary workers who were members of unions in the year 2018 was 10.5 percent, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. That low level of membership has not been seen since the 1930’s—just before the introduction of labor laws protecting workers’ rights to organize—a September 2018 PBS News Hour article observed. When only 1 in 10 U.S. workers is a member of a union, according to Bureau of Labor statistics, it would seem that many working Americans are missing out on the key benefits that union membership affords.

Biggest Reasons to Join a Union – How Unions Improve Workers’ Welfare

When I asked my friend Ray Greaves, who is General Chairman of New Jersey’s Amalgamated Transit Union, how he would sum up the benefits of joining a union, he said this: “Any worker who has the opportunity to join a union should, because when you join a union, you improve your safety at work, prioritize the health of both you and your family, protect your financial stability, invest in your retirement savings, and access a whole community of support in your job.”

Those benefits were worth unpacking further, with a closer look at how unions improve workers’ welfare— starting with these three key benefits:

  1. Better Wages and Job Benefits Via “Collective Bargaining” – Membership in a union means that you are part of an organized body of employees who can negotiate better, more favorable wages and other conditions of employment, such as health insurance benefits, retirement plans and fair work practice policies. As evidence, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found (among still other economic advantages to joining a union) that:
  • Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
  • Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than non-unionized workers— and pay less for those more generous health benefits. In retirement, unionized workers are 24 percent more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
  • Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are 18 to 28 percent more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23 percent to 54 percent more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

In other words, there is strength in numbers. Whereas one person won’t convince HR and management that they need comprehensive health insurance coverage, a large body of unionized employees will be much more persuasive at making the same case.

  1. Better Job Security and Just Representation of Your Employee Rights – Unions have successfully championed legislation to protect employees from unfair work environments and labor practices. A case in point: the Weingarten Act, passed in 1974, which allows a union member to ask for union representation if they are called into a meeting that may change their job status or take disciplinary action.

Often, union representation can ensure the mitigation of disciplinary actions against you. Imagine, for example, a scenario in which you have a drug or alcohol problem and test positive for a drug screening or begin to exhibit problem behaviors at work. In addition to successfully advocating for protection of your job and milder punitive actions on the part of your employer, your union may help you find a low-cost treatment option that allows you to keep your job by seeking treatment for your condition. (In many cases, a union will have contracted with a specific provider for just these sorts of situations.) That access to low-cost addiction treatment and protection of your job while you are away are benefits that many non-unionized workers often don’t get.

  1. Safer Working Conditions – A 2016 study in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that labor unions promote healthier, safer workplaces by ensuring “higher wage and benefit standards, working hours limits, workplace hazards protections, and other factors.” The researchers further concluded that unions promote workers’ well-being by encouraging “democratic participation” and “a sense of community among workers.”

There are many benefits to union membership: This list is not exhaustive. Still, better wages and benefits, better job security and representation of your rights, and safer working conditions are three key reasons to join a union. Together, they make the case that more working Americans should be joining unions.

About the Author: Janet B. Gerhard is Director of Public Affairs for FHE Health, a nationally recognized addiction and mental health treatment provider. Janet is regularly invited to speak to workforce gatherings about addiction-related topics. Learn about FHE Health’s addiction treatment programs here. If you have questions about this issue or other treatment-related inquiries, feel free to contact Janet at 1-866-768-7021.

The Trump Administration’s War on Federal Workers

Monday, June 17th, 2019

Claiming 700,000 members in the United States and overseas, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) stands as the nation’s largest federal and D.C. government employee labor union. The union represents employees who provide care and support for veterans, the elderly and disabled, and people in need of housing through the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, along with other federal agencies.

A statement on the AFGE website describes these employees as the “vital threads of the fabric of American life.” Now, the AFGE contends, its members are under attack, thanks to recent actions by the Trump administration.

The AFGE is currently in contract negotiations with the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of 260,000 employees who work for the agency. In the process of these negotiations, AFGE District Office Manager Matt Muchowski says that VA management is attempting to undo labor rights that have been won by the union since its founding in 1932.

To better understand the nature of these affronts, Muchowski argues, it is important to look at three executive orders signed by President Trump on May 25, 2018. While the orders have since ostensibly been ruled in violation of labor law by a U.S. District Court in August 2018, Muchowski says that sections of the orders which limit time spent during the work day on union activities (known as “official time”) as well as due process are being pushed into the contract by VA negotiators.

This approach is “making it difficult for federal workers to do what they do,” by seeking to alter key elements of the contracts negotiated between AFGE members—including Veterans Affairs workers—and management, he says. Further, Muchowski notes, this strategy has already been employed during negotiations over the Social Security Administration contract earlier this year, which resulted in major concessions for workers. He says the Trump administration’s approach to the AFGE negotiations “represents an escalation of its anti-union tactics.”

The key elements of the 2018 executive orders fall under three categories: employees’ job protection and due process rights, official time and collective bargaining procedures.

The first order outlines limits on the use of “progressive discipline” approaches for workers in federal agencies and instead calls for the allowance of more immediate dismissals, among other more stringently dictated relations between management and workers.

The second order calls for more regulated and restricted use of “official time”: time employees are allowed to spend on union duties while still on the clock. This is a concept that has been part of AFGE’s labor contracts since the Carter administration, Muchowski notes, when the presence of unions in the workplace was seen as “part of effective governance.”

Under this model, an employee can conduct union business while using government-provided items such as office space, computers or phones. Trump’s executive order, however, calls for employees’ official time to be greatly reduced and also mandates that they should no longer be given free or reduced rate access to an office or a computer.

While the Trump administration holds that this revision is necessary to make the government “effective and efficient,” Veterans Affairs employee Germaine Clano disagrees. Clarno is a social worker at the Edward Hines, Jr., VA Hospital in suburban Chicago, and she says the loss of official time would be devastating.

Clarno provides full-time union representation to doctors, social workers and other professional employees of the VA through the official time provision, whether they are dues-paying union members or not. It’s work she describes as essential. “The culture of the VA is still very retaliatory,” Clarno says, noting that she acts as a resource for employees who would like to bring allegations of “waste, fraud or abuse” to light.

“Taking away official time means taking away employees’ security around being able to report what’s going on at the VA,” Clarno insists, “so that we can make things better for our veterans.”

The third order issued by Trump in 2018 is designed to “assist executive departments and agencies in developing efficient, effective, and cost-reducing collective bargaining agreements.” The order claims that collective bargaining agreements limit managers’ ability to either hold “low-performers accountable” or reward “high performers,” and that they are often drawn out, at the expense of taxpayer money.

The order calls for an expedited contract negotiation period, with lingering disputes to be settled by the politically-appointed members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP). In the post-Janus era—which has brought new challenges to public sector unions—it’s notable that panel member David Osborne’s bio states that he has built a career around “offering free legal services to those hurt by public employee union officials.”

While both the FSIP and attempts to govern through executive orders are not new, they are part of an increasingly fraught era for federal workers and the Trump administration’s federal management team.

Just days before Trump issued his three executive orders, news reports noted the rising tension between workers and federal managers, who had just unveiled “an ambitious and aggressive plan to modernize the civil service,” according to Nicole Ogrysko of the Federal News Network. This plan, union leaders alleged, was intended to cut department budgets while turning more federal employees into poorly compensated temp workers.

Trump’s executive orders were contested in court by the AFGE and other labor unions, and in August 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled in favor of the unions. At the time, a review of the case appeared in the online news outlet, Government Executive, where reporter Erich Wagner stated that Brown Jackson found the executive orders to be in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

This Act upholds the value of good-faith labor-management negotiations and concludes that they are done “in the public interest.” Nonetheless, Muchowski says, the Trump administration has persisted in seeking to negotiate labor contracts with federal employees according to the 2018 executive orders. As evidence, he cites the recently settled contract between the Social Security Administration and the 45,000 AFGE members who work there.

During the contract negotiation process, SSA management and union negotiators could not agree on twelve clauses, according to a reportfiled by Tom Temin of the Federal News Network. As a result, the contract was turned over to the FSIP, which has the power to either “recommend a way to agree,” or “order specific, binding actions” that both parties must abide by, Temin states.

While some government panels are bipartisan, the FSIP is not: All seven members were appointed by Trump. Temin notes that, of the twelve disputed clauses, the FSIP sided with management on ten of them. Although AFGE members were able to keep certain grievance rights, they did lose ground on some central matters, including the implementation of a seven-year contract (the union wanted a two-year term) and the loss of both office space and hours set aside for official time.

David Cann, director of field services and education for the AFGE, says he believes the FSIP’s actions are a violation of Judge Brown Jackson’s ruling against certain aspects of Trump’s executive orders. Brown Jackson’s decision, Cann notes, found that parts of the executive orders violated collective bargaining rights outlined in the Civil Service Act of 1978, and that neither the president nor his subordinates could continue negotiations under such terms.

Because the FSIP is an entirely politically appointed body, Cann argues that its members are, in effect, Trump’s subordinates and therefore should not be allowed to settle disputes, using what he believes are the administration’s executive orders as a guide.

In a statement posted to its website, the AFGE minced no words about the dangerous precedent such a decision could set: “A panel of Trump’s union-busting appointees has imposed anti-worker provisions in a new labor-management contract for the people who ensure elderly Americans and those with disabilities can live with dignity and financial security.”

Clarno has been closely tracking the contract settlement between AFGE and the Social Security Administration and says that, for her, the “fear is that the Federal Service Impasse Panel will push the same thing” for VA workers in contract negotiations. “Federal employees can’t strike,” she states. “Really, what leverage do we have? We have none. It’s very, very concerning.”

This article was originally published at In These Times on June 14, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Sarah Lahm is a Minneapolis-based writer and former English Instructor. She is a 2015 Progressive magazine Education Fellow and blogs about education at brightlightsmallcity.com.

NEWS FLASH: Labor Membership Boosts Incomes, Families And Economy

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Dave JohnsonStudy after study, report after report, and of course common sense and our own eyes are telling us that unions help people and the economy do better. It’s obvious. But the billionaires and big corporations want to keep pay and benefits low, and pay politicians to keep it that way.

Which Democratic presidential candidates will come out in favor of strong labor rights and the laws and regulations that protect and encourage this?

A new report presented by the Center for American Progress co-authored with economists Richard Freeman and Eunice Han is only the latest look at how labor unions enable working people to do better. The report, “Bargaining for the American Dream: What Unions do for Mobility,” looks at “economic mobility” and “intergenerational mobility” and finds that mobility is better where unions are strong.

Big words, but what does this mean for real people? The study found that areas with higher union membership demonstrate more mobility for low-income children:

? Low-income children rise higher in the income rankings when they grow up in areas with high union membership.
? An increase in union density is associated with an increase in the income of an area’s children – as much as or more than high school dropout rates.
? Children of non-college-educated fathers earn more if their father was in a labor union.

Previous studies had looked at how other factors affected mobility: single motherhood rates, income inequality, high school dropout rates, social capital and segregation. But they had not looked at union membership. This study did look at this and found that the effect of union membership is close to the effect of inequality; only single motherhood has more of an effect.

At an event about the report, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (starting about 12:35 in the video) was rather pro-labor. He congratulated the authors for the study, but warned not to necessarily interpret the results as causal. He said the data used could also show that it’s the policies of the old Confederate states that cause lower mobility. Those states “are set up to produce a lot of immobility.” Are unions a cause or a symptom of that? The data show that holding all other factors constant, being in a union does appear to mean your children and grandchildren will do better.

Summers said private sector unionism by its nature goes hand-in-hand with private sector monopoly power and monopoly profits. Unions make sure that workers share in it. But government policies have assisted in making union organizing difficult, thereby decreasing membership.

The report suggested ways that unions might promote increased mobility. Union jobs pay more, which can lead to better outcomes for the kids in union families. Union jobs are often more stable, leading to a stable living environment for children to grow up in. Union jobs tend to come with family health insurance.

These gains show up in children who are not from union families but come from more densely unionized regions. This could be because unions push up wages generally, not just union members, and fight for programs that benefit everyone, especially low-income people.

What Can We Do?

While studies, reports, common sense and our eyes show us that people and our economy do better when workers are able to organize to fight the power of organized wealth, organized wealth is winning. Public policy increasingly supports wealth over working people. Unions are in decline, public investment is in decline, income inequality is rising. Even in times of political domination by Democrats, such as the early years of the Obama administration, little is done to reverse these policies and help working people.

In this presidential campaign Republicans are overwhelmingly speaking out for the interests of the billionaire class that funds them. For example, “Jeb!” Bush has introduced a plan to dramatically cut taxes for the rich. The Republican frontrunner is an actual billionaire.

On the Democratic side, frontrunner Hillary Clinton largely avoids championing specific policy proposals, and in spite of populist language is suspected of supporting the wealth/corporate-owning class. Opponent Bernie Sanders initiated his campaign in an attempt to “move Clinton to the left,” to get her to endorse specific policies that could address the problems of increasing inequality and the decline in pro-worker, pro-labor policies that worsen inequality. Interestingly, he is rising in the polls and even overtaking Clinton in some states as a result of his message.

Will the Democratic Party at large see this and rally for stronger labor laws as part of their plan to fight inequality and raise wages? If Bernie Sanders gets the votes to win the nomination and become the candidate, will the party apparatus fall in line? Or will they continue to provide only lip service – and lose elections?

This blog originally appeared in Ourfuture.org on September 11, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

California Working Families Beat Koch-Backed Prop. 32

Thursday, November 8th, 2012

For the third time in the past 14 years, California voters rejected an attempt—fueled by millions of out-of-state dollars—to shut working people out of the political process when they soundly defeated Proposition 32. California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski said working families:

Rejected a blatant power play by corporate special interests to silence the voice of working people. Despite weeks of misleading advertisements backing Prop. 32 paid for by billionaires and out-of-state super PACs, the margin of defeat was decisive. Prop. 32 backers spent more than $50 million in an effort to fool voters.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that $11 million of that war chest came from “a shadowy Arizona group that became entangled with the state’s Supreme Court over where it got its money.”

Ultimately, that money was traced back to two outside groups with ties to the billionaire oil tycoon brothers, David and Charles Koch, as well as to Karl Rove, the former top strategist to former President George W. Bush, whose web of super PACs and non-profit groups spread hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigns across the nation.

Prop. 32 would ban the use of voluntary payroll deductions by union members who want to contribute to their union’s political activity. It would do nothing to stop the campaign spending by secret corporate-backed PACs and the wealthy. Pulaski says:

Prop. 32 had the effect of driving millions of firefighters, electricians, nurses, teachers, plumbers and other working people to the polls today. This measure was nothing less than an attack on working people; an attack we took personally.

More than 40,000 union volunteers made more than 3 million voter contacts and distributed more than 5.1 million worksite leaflets.

As of this morning, Prop. 32 was losing by more than eight percentage points. Working families defeated similar measures in 2005 and 1998.

Working families also rallied to help pass Prop. 30 that will raise $6 billion to put the state’s education system back on track by ending cuts to schools and providing funds to rehire teachers, reduce class sizes and update textbooks. It’s paid for by asking the state’s wealthiest to pay their fair share. Learn more about Prop. 30.

This post was originally posted on AFL-CIO NOW on November 7, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Mike Hall is a former West Virginia newspaper reporter, staff writer for the United Mine Workers Journal and managing editor of the Seafarers Log. I came to the AFL- CIO in 1989 and have written for several federation publications, focusing on legislation and politics, especially grassroots mobilization and workplace safety.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog