Monopolists seek to deregulate global labor organizing standards

"A New Offensive Against the Whole System of Standards: The Right to Strike Is Being Attacked!"
2015-01-02 by Jacques Diriclet for the ILC International Newsletter #206:
The standards system framework of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) founded on the elaboration of international labour conventions submitted to the ratification of states and on the monitoring of their implementation is again under attack. It started during the 101th session of the International Labour Conference in 2012 when the employers' group decided to challenge the fact that the right to strike flows from convention N°87 on the freedom of association.
As will be shown, the attack was carried on through 2013 and 2014.

Freedom of association cannot be separated from the right to strike.
In 1948, the ILO adopted a convention on the right to associate, convention N° 87. It was complemented in 1949 by convention N° 98 on the right to organise and on collective bargaining. Since then, ILO bodies have repeatedly affirmed that the right to strike flows from those, especially article 2 of convention 87, which stipulates that “workers' organizations . . . have the right . . . to draw up their programme of action” and of the recognition of the right to organise “for furthering and defending the interests of workers ...” (article 10).
The Committee on Freedom of Association, which was instituted in 1951 and examines the complaints filed on non compliance with conventions 87 and 98 decided in its very first year of functioning, that “right to strike is a fundamental right of workers and of their organizations”. The commission of experts repeatedly affirmed that the right to strike is a fundamental right of workers and of their organisations.
In 1957, the International Labour Conference adopted a resolution to member states “called for the adoption of “laws ensuring the effective and unrestricted exercise of trade union rights, including the right to strike, by the workers”.

A determined attack against the ILO's whole standards and control system -
Every year, during the session of the International Labour Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards examines, among others, a list of twenty-five especially serious cases of violation of standards.
In 2012, for the first time since 1927, the employers' group refused to participate in the examination of the cases of violation of convention N° 87. As a pre-condition, they demanded the inclusion of a statement in the conclusions of the Committee registering their disagreement: They considered that “The right to strike has no legal founding in the conventions on freedom to organise”.
In 2013, confronted with the blackmail of the employers who threatened to cripple the committee's work, the ILO Workers' Group accepted the statement that they demanded so that the twenty-five cases could be duly examined.
In 2014, the Workers' Group refused such language, which resulted in the fact that only six cases out of twenty-five were examined.
Because of that, such points as the protection of migrant workers against methods bordering on slavery, discrimination against trade unionists, child labour or employment policies in the framework of European austerity programmes were left aside.

The ILO is at risk!
Today, this offensive, which affects the very foundation of the ILO, takes a new dimension. But it was heralded a long time ago. In 1998, a Declaration of Fundamental Rights was adopted under the sponsorship of U.S. President Bill Clinton. It calls to “respect, promote and implement in good faith the principles related to fundamental rights” (See footnote 1). This declaration, presented as a “promotion”, or improvement, is not equivalent to the ratification of conventions. Convention 87, like all the conventions, specifies that, “This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.”. The States that ratify a convention are under obligation to transcribe it into national laws. For instance, the United States is still not “bound” by conventions 87 and 98, since it has not yet ratified them.
In 2012, increased pressure was applied: the Employers' Group declared that “supervising international labour standards should be in the service of the tripartite mandate-givers and reflect their needs, including those of workers and employers”. In the name of “needs”, bosses want to impose an interpretation valid for some and different for others.
Today as the right to strike is being challenged, they are bent on moving on to a new phase. The whole structure of the standards system is under threat: the existence and relevance of the international standards of labour which were established a little less than a century ago in the framework of the ILO and the monitoring system are directly threatened.
Last June, from the ILO's rostrum, French labour minister François Rebsamen, called for “a modification of the ILO” and for the introduction of “social partnership in the framework of social dialogue. He explained that, “The problem of interpreting standards should in this way be clarified, and a tripartite consensus solution should be found. France reaffirms that it favours a mechanism of interpretation within the Organization, with flexible and economical methods”.
“Flexibility” means all-out deregulation. It is in the name of flexibility that, a few weeks ago, the president of Medef, the French employers’ association, advocated the denunciation by France of convention 158, which compels an employer to justify the lay-off of an employee.
Defending labour organisations, their freedom, which cannot be separated from the right to strike and their independence, is one and the same as defending the ILO in its capacity of acting as an institution that establishes standards in conformity with it original mission in 1919, reaffirmed by the 1944 Philadelphia Declaration. And this gives leverage to defend workers' rights against rampant exploitation by employers and the governments in their service.
These issues are more relevant than ever!

Footnotes:
(1) Eight conventions have been mentioned as references: the ones on issues of freedom of association (conventions 87 and 98), banning forced labour (conventions 29 and 105), equal rights (conventions 111 and 151) and child labour (conventions 138 and 182).

---

"The Very Existence of Standards Is at Risk"
(Excerpts from the remarks by Marc Leemans, vice-president of the Workers Group of the Committee on the Application of Standards before the 103th session of the International Conference of Labour, June 2014)
The Workers’ group decided not to adopt conclusions on the application of standards. Why?
Today, the Employers are challenging the experts’ interpretation of Convention No. 87 with regard to the right to strike. It is a longstanding disagreement, and it is a particularly sensitive subject for the Workers. But the Employers have clearly sent the message that, for them, consensual conclusions are a thing of the past. And not only with regard to the right to strike: we have also heard challenges to the experts’ interpretation of the concept of “public servants” in: the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); questioning of the legal scope of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102); and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122); and many other questions. If we continue on this path, it will no longer be enough to challenge a certain interpretation of the standards; there will be fundamental challenges to the very existence and relevance of these standards. And in the case that we have before us and in the procedures of the existing framework, there is nothing that will enable us to overcome such a stumbling block.
The attitude of the Employers is an all-out attack against the standards’ supervisory mechanism. They want to put the experts in a subordinate role to the Committee on the Application of Standards. Now, . . .  these two bodies each have their own legitimacy, they are interdependent and not hierarchically subordinate one to the other.
Why do we, the Workers, support the experts on the question of the right to strike?
I do not want to turn my statement into a lecture on law, but please allow me to emphasize that the Workers support the traditional interpretation of the Committee of Experts, not simply because it suits us, but because it is the only plausible construction of freedom of association in the ILO Charter and consequently in Convention No. 87. To put it another way, in international labour law, the ILO has enshrined the right of workers to organize, to form unions to negotiate their working conditions. The right to organize implies the workers’ right to collectively refuse to work under conditions which they believe not to be in line with their interests or the negotiated conditions.”

Pointers: What are ILO conventions 87 and 98?
Excerpts of convention (N°87) on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise 1948
Article 2: Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.
Article 3 (1):Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
Article 3 (2). The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

Excerpts from the right to organise and collective bargaining convention (N° 98)
Article 1: Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.
Article 2 (1): Workers' and employers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.

"Print-In" action by worker & student alliance at San Francisco Art Institute and Mills College

"Newest SEIU 1021 members hold 'print ins' to win support heading into bargaining"
2014-08-26 from the "1021 Newswire":
Adjuncts at the San Francisco Art Institute and Mills College are trying an unusual tactic this week — "print ins" — to gain the support of students, staff and fellow faculty as they head into their first contract negotiations since joining SEIU 1021 this spring.
This Monday, August 25, was the first day of fall semester classes at SFAI. As students entered the courtyard between classes, they were met by visiting faculty members who gave them informational fliers (and snacks) while adjunct professor and printmaker Art Hazelwood offered silkscreened prints of original designs (pictured).
The designs were labor-themed and appealed to viewers to support visiting faculty as they begin to negotiate their first contract with SFAI administration. They invited students, faculty and staff to attend an all-SFAI social on Sept. 10 to discuss campus issues and their hopes for their first contract, and to build connections for a more cohesive academic and artistic community on campus.

Grist for the Mills -
Mills College adjuncts will hold a similar "print in" of their own as students head back to classes on August 27. Mills Action, an organization of students supporting the new adjunct faculty union, will be inviting students to a Sept. 10 "SpeakOut" where all students, faculty and staff are welcome to come discuss their issues and hopes.
There is much to discuss at Mills: Since adjuncts voted to unionize, the administration has made a slew of budget cuts, including heavy staff layoffs and changes to course rules that result in fewer course offerings and larger classes. Mills Action and the adjunct union are protesting these cuts.
The Mills College adjuncts were the first to join SEIU 1021 (in May), by a 78 percent margin. Visiting faculty at SFAI voted to join in June, also with 78 percent. Both of these new chapters have several actions planned for the coming weeks as they get down to work negotiating their first contracts.

"San Francisco: 142,000 workers to get raise from minimum wage ballot measure"

2014-08-26 from "1021 newswire":
A new report by economists from the University of California, Berkeley, finds that an upcoming San Francisco ballot measure to raise the minimum wage would significantly benefit workers in the city and strengthen the local economy.
The study finds that about 142,000 workers — 23 percent of the city's workforce — will receive a raise under the proposed law. Pay for those workers would rise an average of $2,800 per year, for a total increase in aggregate earnings of $397 million in 2014 dollars by 2018.
"A citywide minimum wage can help make the economy more equitable without harming economic growth," said Michael Reich, director of the UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment and a minimum wage scholar. "That's more money in low-wage workers' pockets for a healthier city and a fairer economy."

A tale of two city's propositions -
The ballot measure — Proposition J on the November 4 ballot — reflects a consensus among the Campaign for a Fair Economy (which includes community groups and labor unions), business associations, Mayor Ed Lee, and all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors. It would increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2018, with guaranteed cost-of-living increases.
Oakland will also vote in November to raise its minimum wage to $12.25 by 2015. An earlier study from UC Berkeley showed that more than one-quarter of all Oakland workers — up to 48,000 people — would directly or indirectly receive a wage increase if the measure passes, generating $115-126 million in additional wages. Roughly 56,700 would win paid sick days.
In both cities, these increases would especially benefit women, working families, and workers of color. In San Francisco, 26 percent of female workers will receive a raise and 71 percent of workers receiving a raise would be people of color. Incomes will increase for more than three-fourths of working-poor families.

Back to the future -
San Francisco's current citywide minimum-wage ordinance has had little effect on overall employment or hours worked, the study shows, and the numbers indicate that the costs of the 2003 minimum-wage law were absorbed through increased worker productivity, decreased turnover and small, one-time increases in restaurant prices.
The Coalition for a Fair Economy builds on the coalition that ten years ago passed San Francisco's first minimum-wage law, and includes ACCE Action, California Nurses Association, Chinese Progressive Association, Jobs with Justice, SF Labor Council, SF Progressive Workers Alliance, SF Rising, SEIU 1021, UNITEHERE Local 2, and Young Workers United.
"Proposition J will set a new standard for working conditions in the Bay Area, and inspire other cities and counties — around the Bay and across the nation — to take on their own minimum wage fights," said SEIU 1021 Vice President Gary Jimenez.

Media coverage:
* SF Bay Guardian: "Koch brothers and other right-wing outsiders challenge Bay Area minimum wage measures" [https://web.archive.org/web/20140828004421/http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/08/22/koch-brothers-and-other-right-wing-outsiders-challenge-bay-area-minimum-wage-mea]
* East Bay Express: "Koch-Backed News Site Attacks Oakland's Minimum Wage Initiative" [https://web.archive.org/web/20140812011330/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/koch-backed-news-site-attacks-oaklands-minimum-wage-initiative/Content?oid=4037371]

Call for solidarity with the worker's 'Committee of Interns and Residents' at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland

Sign the Petition to Support Resident Physicians of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland
[http://www.change.org/p/ucsf-benioff-children-s-hospital-oakland-treat-your-resident-pediatricians-with-respect-and-negotiate-a-fair-contract].

For the past 16 months Resident Physicians of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland have seen no progress while negotiating a new contract with the hospital administration, which has refused to compromise even on items that would improve efficiency and patient care.
It is from this deep-rooted conviction that Pediatric Residents proudly entered this program knowing the expectations of working 65-80 hours a week, while serving the community and some of the most underserved children in the area.
A proposal to freeze wages for three years will make it difficult to recruit the best resident doctors to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, especially as housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocket. Additionally, the hospital administration has refused the request for the hospital to contribute $37,000 to the Patient Care Fund which helps families in need purchase discharge medications when they cannot afford them.
It’s time for UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland to bargain in good faith! Sign the petition here to show your support.


Petitioning UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland 
Treat your resident pediatricians with respect and negotiate a fair contract!
[signed]
Committee of Interns and Residents
[http://www.change.org/p/ucsf-benioff-children-s-hospital-oakland-treat-your-resident-pediatricians-with-respect-and-negotiate-a-fair-contract]

We are the resident physicians of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.  We serve San Francisco Bay Area’s children and we love our jobs!
Unfortunately, for the past 16 months we have seen no progress while negotiating a new contract with the hospital administration.  The hospital administration is not willing to make compromises, even on items that would improve efficiency and patient care, such as equipment walkthroughs to maintain computer equipment.
We came to the negotiation table with thoughtful and reasonable proposals, and we have continued to modify these proposals in order to reach an agreement.  Yet the administration continues to refuse any change to our current contract. They have instead shown us a blatant lack of respect, including: showing up significantly late to bargaining sessions, scheduling bargaining sessions during busy patient care hours, and ignoring the clinical work we do to help UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland fulfill its mission.
That hurts. As resident pediatricians, we are dedicated to improving the health of children. We chose UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland in part because of the service it provides to some of the most underserved children in the area. It is from this deep-rooted conviction that we proudly entered this residency program knowing we will work 65-80 hours a week, while serving this community.  Whether it is 3pm or 3am we are there for our patients and we are making medical decisions, often on our own.  Our presence allows the hospital to care for the approximately 10,000 inpatient admissions, 200,000 outpatient admissions, and 47,000 emergency visits per year for patients throughout Northern California.
The administration’s approach to these contract negotiations leaves us concerned for our patients and the future of our residency program.  The administration intends to freeze our wages for 3 additional years. This wage freeze will make it difficult to recruit the best resident doctors to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, especially as housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocket. There is no question that the quality of a residency program depends on the quality of the residents we can recruit.
We have also asked the hospital to contribute $37,000 to our Patient Care Fund which helps families in need purchase discharge medications when they cannot afford them. Though neighboring hospitals contribute much more to their respective funds, our hospital’s administration at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland has refused to contribute one cent to ours. We have taken it upon ourselves to hold fundraisers like bake sales to try and cover this necessary patient service.
We feel that our proposals are investments in the future of our institution, residency program, and most importantly our community.  The hospital was profitable in 2011 ($43 million) and 2012 ($11 million) and has recently received a $50,000,000 donation. Thus, it is appalling that the administration continues to reject our proposals that amount to about $250,000 in costs and would keep UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland in line with its mission of quality patient care. Since our hospital's affiliation with UCSF, we have felt that the hospital's attentions have been more focused on branding and building their new relationship accross the bay, rather than investing in their employees and in the Oakland Community.
Please sign our petition to encourage UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland to bargain in good faith! We need your support to encourage UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland to invest in our community pediatricians, and thereby invest in the health of the children of the Bay Area. Thank you!

[text of petition]
To:
UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland
Dr. Bert Lubin
I am deeply concerned about UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland’s treatment of resident physicians during contract negotiations. I am aware that the hospital has not been negotiating in good faith with the residents while rejecting all proposals, even those that would directly benefit patient care.
The residents have asked for simple and necessary improvements. For example they proposed that the hospital contribute to the Patient Care Fund which is used to purchase discharge medications for patients who cannot afford them. They have also asked for a small one-time bonus to help supplement the skyrocketing cost of living in Oakland and to ensure Children’s Hospital Oakland continues to recruit excellent resident physicians.
I urge you to negotiate in good faith with the resident physicians at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland so that they can continue providing quality patient care for the children of Oakland and Northern California.
Sincerely,
[Your name]

"Napa County: Workers rally against cuts to lowest-paid workers"

2014-08-19 from "1021 Newswire" (SEIU1021.org):
Last Wednesday some 200 county workers rallied outside the Napa County Library to send a message to the Board of Supervisors and the County that they will not accept greater cuts to the lowest-paid members' paychecks.

Napa County employees have been without a contract since June 30, and while some progress has been made on many issues at the bargaining table, negotiations have stalled because of the County's insistence on health care concessions that would negate proposed cost-of-living adjustments -- hitting the lowest-paid workers the hardest.
The cuts are a percentage of the cost of premiums, meaning a bigger percentage comes out of lower-paid workers' take-home pay. Someone making $16.24 an hour would lose 4.4 percent for individual coverage or up to 11.4 percent for family coverage, while someone earning $30 an hour would lose only 2.4 percent of take-home pay for single coverage or up to 6 percent for family coverage.
Those of us at the bottom are already struggling to make ends meet in an increasingly expensive and unequal Napa County, the nation's seventh wealthiest community, and we can ill afford yet another attack on our household budgets.
Several members told compelling stories of how the cuts would affect their families. Rosa Briseno, a 12-year office assistant, lost her home when her husband was laid off, after she donated a kidney to save her teenage daughter's life. Health and Human Services worker Annie Mendoza and her family have been left bouncing from hotel to hotel since their home burned to the ground; her paychecks have not been sufficient to secure stable housing.
"Another cut to my pay," said Mendoza, "and we will be out on the streets."
Rosa and Annie are just two of many County employees who have fallen through the cracks during this period of record income inequality, and have learned the hard way how living paycheck to paycheck means living one paycheck away from homelessness.
Napa County workers will rally and leaflet the public outside Health and Human Services this Wednesday, Aug. 20, from 12-1pm, and will continue weekly actions until the County comes back to the table. The County is refusing to bargain again until September 9.

Napa Valley Register: "Union rallies after county labor negotiations hit roadblock" [http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/union-rallies-after-county-labor-negotiations-hit-roadblock/article_a23f5f08-86a8-54e3-a5fb-8fa561fae886.html].

"Labor joins community at Ferguson march"

2014-08-20 by NICHOLAS JAMES for "People's World" [http://peoplesworld.org/labor-joins-community-at-ferguson-march/]:
FERGUSON, Missouri - I work for a union, the Service Employees International Union, and I work at the St. Louis office of the Healthcare IIMK local. One of the facilities to which I am assigned is a nursing home here and several of my other sites encircle this north St. Louis County suburb.
The city of St. Louis is a progressive-voting town where Republican candidates don't even bother running for office but St. Louis County is conservative. Among the 29 percent of the population that is white are the sons and daughters of many who fled the inner city in earlier times. Voter participation among that section of the town is far greater than it is in the African American population with the result being a mostly-white town government and police force.
In the town itself, black people hold the lower-paying jobs and white people tend to hold the jobs that provide what is closer to a living wage.
SEIU is a social justice union; SEIU Healthcare IIMK is one of the more progressive locals; and the St. Louis office has a reputation for being the "radical corner," a really active part of the local.
On Saturday, August 16, I arrived an hour early for a march here. It was raining, the turnout was not looking too promising, and a waterlogged assortment of flowers and candles in the middle of Coppercreek Rd. (where Michael Brown was executed) cut a morose scene in the sunless morning. Rev. Jesse Jackson was under a popup tent talking with local media. I was passing out "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" buttons that my wife and I made the night before. It was only a few minutes before the march was to start, and turnout was still dismal.
Noon hit, the clouds parted, bullhorns fired up, and waves of protestors came seemingly from nowhere to swell our ranks. The march was underway, and hundreds were chanting "Hands up! Don't shoot!"
I began to notice the purple shirts donned by my union members, before and behind me. SEIU banners were being carried, and purple bracelets were everywhere I looked. Other members that had not "purpled up" were scattered throughout, shouting their heads off. I could not have been prouder. As the mile-long column marched down the main street of Florissant, whole families poured from their doors and joined the procession. Ice cream trucks parked in the suicide lanes handed out rocket pops to kids marching. The opposing lane was loaded with cars honking in solidarity and raised open hands protruding from every window.
What does this have to do with unions, you ask?
Unions are made up of workers. Workers pay dues to hire support staff and representation. SEIU members live in north St. Louis County and north St. Louis City, so we are proud to support our workers in any capacity that we can. There should be no divide between labor and community. If it is the peoples' struggle, then it is the workers' struggle...and that is the struggle for all of us.
No justice? No peace.

McDonald's (and all fastfood) Franchise restaurants must respect Worker's Rights!

"McDonald’s Can’t Hide Behind Franchise System"
2014-08-18 by Julia Kann from "Labor Notes" [http://labornotes.org/2014/08/mcdonald’s-can’t-hide-behind-franchise-system]:
Milwaukee fast food workers picketed McDonald’s during a one-day strike. The NLRB said the chain can’t duck labor violations at its franchises. (Photo: Overpass Light Brigade)


McDonald’s workers demanding “$15 and a union” have reason to cheer. A move by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Office of the General Counsel on July 29 throws a big wrench in the corporation’s franchise system and could open the door to more worker organizing.
The news follows several one-day strikes by fast food workers, most recently in May, when restaurant workers walked off their low-wage jobs in 150 U.S. cities in a campaign coordinated by the Service Employees (SEIU). Workers charge that on top of paying unlivably low wages, the restaurants break the law by stealing wages and retaliating against those who speak up.

THREE THOUSAND BOSSES -
While 761,000 people work for McDonald’s in the U.S., they have more than 3,000 different bosses. These bosses are franchisees—individuals or companies that pay McDonald’s for permission to use the brand and set up shop. McDonald’s also directly operates 15 percent of its stores.
Individual franchisees have little power over how to operate the restaurants. They sign an agreement to follow McDonald’s guidelines and even to purchase supplies only from the corporate office, where menu item prices are also set.
For McDonald’s, the largest burger chain in the world, it’s a dream deal—guaranteed income without having to shoulder the risk of, say, getting caught breaking labor laws. They’re free to plead ignorance, much like employers who hide behind layers of subcontractors.
Supposedly franchisees decide workers’ wages. But in reality headquarters controls wages “by controlling every other variable in the business except wages,” explains a report from the National Employment Law Project. It’s no coincidence those wages all hover around the minimum. So if workers want to raise the wage, they’ll have to get the corporation to the table.

JOINT EMPLOYER -
By calling McDonald’s a “joint employer” with its franchisees, the General Counsel—that’s the prosecuting side of the NLRB—sided with workers, who argue the corporation exerts so much control over store operations that it should be held accountable for what happens under its Golden Arches. The agency’s judicial side—the actual Labor Board—is independent of the prosecuting side, so there’s no guarantee it will ultimately agree with this interpretation.
But this is a big first step. Several dozen unfair labor practice claims, alleging unpaid wages, work off the clock, and retaliatory firings, have been on hold in local NLRB offices across the country. The General Counsel’s announcement will clear the way for local NLRB offices to hold the corporation, not just franchisees, accountable for the workplace abuses. That should help turn up the heat on corporate.
If rulings start coming out against the corporate office, that should help turn up the heat on McDonald’s. Maybe enough to push them to cut a deal with the union.

NOW WHAT?
Though the news is good, it probably doesn’t mean workers will soon be negotiating their working conditions with McDonald’s Corporation. After all, fellow low-wage employer Walmart directly operates its stores—yet unions have been unable to keep a toehold there.
Just before the NLRB announcement, fast food workers held a convention, underwritten by SEIU, near McDonald’s headquarters in Chicago. There 1,200 workers from many fast food chains, including McDonald’s, Burger King, and Taco Bell, pledged to escalate their tactics, including to civil disobedience.
These workers are in for a long fight, but there are victories they can look to for inspiration. It’s not impossible to win agreements that bring three groups—in this case the corporation, the franchisees, and the workers—to the table.
After five years of organizing, farmworkers in North Carolina tobacco fields forced R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to the table in 2012. They used a sustained attack on the Reynolds brand to get the attention of both growers and the corporation that buys their crop. This summer they’re upping their organizing, seeking to produce enough pressure to actually win a joint contract, as other farmworkers have done.
Tomato pickers in Immokalee, Florida organized in the fields and with allies for decades before finally winning three-way contracts with growers and the fast food chains that buy from them.
The same possibility exists at McDonald’s and other franchised fast-food corporations. Some day we may see multi-sided contracts crisscrossing the whole fast food supply chain, uniting farmworkers, meatpackers, truckers, and retail workers against a single brand. But it’s going to take a lot more than the NLRB’s opinion to get there.

"Open Letter Alleging Racism At The East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation"

2014-08-13 by Lynda Carson [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/13/18760000.php]:
Below is the copy of a letter I received on August 5, 2014 at my home address. It is postmarked August 4, 2014, and the letter itself is dated July 28, 2014. It has an upside down Forever stamp on it of Jimi Hendrix, and it is postmarked in the City of Oakland.
The typed letter is directed to myself and: cc: NAACP, Oakland: ---- Attorney John Burris:
The unsigned letter appears to be from an employee of the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), who wants the plight of African Americans to be known regarding their employment experience with EBALDC, a wealthy nonprofit development corporation located downtown Oakland.
Based upon information and belief, I believe the letter to be authentic, and that it truly is from an employee of EBALDC who wants to bring attention to the plight of African Americans working for the nonprofit housing developer.
The website for EBALDC is http://www.ebaldc.org
Below the letter is a job recruiting message posted by EBALDC on Craig's List during 2008:
Below the job recruiting message posted on Craig's List, is a Mission Statement of EBALDC and an archived link from their website during 2002.

[begin copy of letter]
July 28, 2014
Linda Carson, cc: NAACP, Oakland, Attorney John Burris
Dear Ms. Carson,
Racism is alive and well at East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation also known as EBALDC. I am an employee of EBALDC and I have read your blogs on tenant relations and for that reason I am reaching out to you to bring awareness to our situation here. We don't have anyone that cares about us here at EBALDC and it is obvious by what they have said and done that they do not want us African Americans here. It needs to be brought to the attention of someone that EBALDC practices harassment, favoritism, deception, bullying and retaliation towards African American employees. EBALDC wants its culture of Asian and Pacific Islanders to be the only staff at EBALDC. Let me tell you why?
Joshua Simon was hired to EBALDC as the Executive Director on April 1, 2013. He quickly hired Charise Fong as the Chief Operating Officer and discouraged any other staff to apply for that position. It was well known that an internal African American wanted to apply for the position. The position was never posted which was unfair to outside candidates. Under their leadership, this is how many African American's have left EBALDC or have been fired.

1) African American Director of Property Management resigned with a severance package after only working for EBALDC for six months.
2) African American long-time male Property Supervisor resigned sometime in September 2013. He was not promoted to an associate position in spite of his years of service with this organization. A white female was hired as the Director of Property Management.
3) African American male was promoted into the supervisory role in October 2013. However he resigned after holding the position for only 3 months and he left without having another job.
4) African American Property Manager resigned in April of 2014. She was having problems with Janis Yan who consistently yelled, belittled, and disrespected her. She resigned because she could no longer take the abuse.
5) Two African American management staff was terminated on April 11, 2014 for cause. From what I recently heard, they were not given due process and were not given a coach to work with them. However, since March 2014 a coach has been hired to work with Executive Director, Joshua Simon who is a Caucasian. He was not terminated for poor performance and was given due process.
6) African American Assistant Property Manager resigned on July 11, 2014.
7) An African American Property Manager has been out on worker's comp. for several weeks due to stress and working within a hostile work environment.
8) An African American Administrative Assistant has been out on worker's comp. since February 2014 for stress.
9) An African American worker has been out on worker's compensation for over six months for stress.
10) Another recent African American Property Manager has been out on worker's compensation for the past several weeks due to stress.

I have been told that the African American Human Resources Director brought all of this to the attention of the Executive Director, Joshua Simon. I have been told that the African American Human Resources Director brought to the attention of Charise Fong, the Chief Operating Officer that her Associated Director, Janis Yan yells, intimidates, screams, harasses the African American staff and the Chief Operating Officer supported this behavior. African Americans have discussed filing a class action lawsuit and EBALDC is aware of this and have done nothing to make changes. There are only a few of us left and we hear that we are next. We can't make decisions, we are micromanaged, and we have no one to talk to about our concerns. The previous Human Resources Director was trying to make changes and she was quickly fired for trying to help and support us. Now we are watched more, treated differently and have been put under a microscope for far too long. I thought this was 2014; we have an African American President. Maybe that that is why we have been treated so poorly.... We need this brought to someone's attention so people are aware of how EBALDC treats it's African American staff.
I am not a disgruntled employee; I am an employee that wants justice for my fallen African American co-workers and I want the abuse to stop. Some of the other African American staff are afraid to speak up because this is their first job, they have limited education, they have children to support and they live on property and don't have to pay rent so they don't speak up. Do your research and you can find out for yourself how many EEOC complaints have been filed against EBALDC by African American staff recently. Also check with the Labor Board to find out how they change hourly staff timecards when they work overtime and withhold pay which is illegal. EBALDC receives government funding, money from donors, banks and investors. They also receive tax credits from the Oakland Housing Authority. I wonder how these funders would feel if they knew their dollars funded unfair, racist practices, and how many African American's have quit or been fired and how this continues to this day. Just three days ago, Janis Yan was seen running through the office looking for an employee that is on worker's compensation. Why, just to harass her for being off work.
Now I know you can't do anything about this abuse. But if you can bring to light our plight in your blog, maybe someone will pay attention and check out what I am saying. The truth does not lie. There are several EEOC complaints filed and more coming. Something needs to be done about EBALDC. I know their mission in the past was to help their culture. However, take a good look and see who is occupying the properties that EBALDC owns. You should know as you reside in one of the properties.
Think about it.
[end copy of letter]


(Below is the copy of a job recruiting posting by EBALDC on Craigs List from 2008)
[begin job recruitment posting]
Assistant Property Manager Part-time 25hrs/wk
Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-10-29, 11:17AM PDT
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/rej/898182293.html

East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) is a community development corporation that develops affordable housing and community facilities with integrated services focused on tenants and neighborhood residents, with emphasis on Asian Pacific Islander communities and the diverse low-income populations of the East Bay. (Visit http://www.ebaldc.org for more information.)
EBALDC is seeking an Assistant Property Manager to assist with the management of a multi-family complex in San Pablo, CA. The ideal candidate will be experienced in dealing with low-income, and diverse populations.
The Assistant Manager is responsible for operating the complex in accordance with Tax Credit, and EBALDC administrative guidelines to ensure effective fiscal, physical and social soundness. The Assistant Manager should take initiative to seek solutions to problems unique to the complex and supervise employees in a manner requiring minimum supervision from the Property Manager.
The ideal candidate will possess basic knowledge of bookkeeping, be computer literate in Yardi, and proficient in Microsoft Word, and Excel. Must be able to problem solve with staff and residents. Have knowledge of TACA, HOME, MHP and PBV (Project Base Vouches) housing programs. Have good written and verbal communication skills. Ability to interact with a wide variety of people - personnel, residents, local agencies, contractors, and owner and ability to take initiative and think independently.

Benefits:
EBALDC offers excellent benefits. EBALDC pays 100% of employee premiums and 45% of dependent premiums for Medical, Dental, Vision, Alternative Health, LTD and Life, FSA, EAP, Retirement(3% match contribution, 2% discretionary contribution), paid Vacation, Sick and Holiday time for regular employees working at least 20 hours per week.

Application procedures: (Recruit Wizard)
To apply please clink on the link or copy and paste the link into you web browser's address bar and apply online: https://home.eease.com/recruit/?id=36490
EBALDC is an EOE/AA Employer
• Compensation: DOE
• This is at a non-profit organization.
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 898182293

[end job recruitment posting]


(Below is a paragraph from the EBALDC mission statement during 2002)
[http://web.archive.org/web/20020724162520/http://www.ebaldc.org/organization/mission.htm]
Mission Statement:
The East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation is a community economic development organization dedicated to the betterment of the East Bay community, particularly the low-income and Asian and Pacific Islander population, through development of physical, human and economic assets for individuals and community organizations.
[end EBALDC Mission Statement]


Note: Lynda Carson resides in a property in Oakland that is owned by the Ivy Hill Development Corporation, not by EBALDC.
For what it's worth: Ivy Hill Development Corporation is an affiliate of EBALDC, and EBALDC is the controlling entity of Ivy Hill Development Corporation. Oddly enough, the maintenance men working for Ivy Hill Development Corporation at the location I reside at wear shirts that say "EBALDC" in very large letters on their shirts. It appears that there has been an illegal mixing of funds going on for years between the Ivy Hill Development Corporation, and EBALDC. Additionally, for many years all of the employees, managers, property managers, property supervisors, and maintenance men that work for Ivy Hill Development Corporation at the location that I reside at all behave as though they work for EBALDC, not Ivy Hill Development Corporation. The culture of impersonating EBALDC employees where I reside at is so pervasive that most residents believe that the employees from Ivy Hill Development Corporation, actually work for EBALDC.

Fast Food workers have a right to unionize without retaliation

"Fast food workers plan civil disobedience as employers “freak out” over NLRB ruling"
2014-07-31 by Tony Pecinovsky for "People's World" [http://peoplesworld.org/fast-food-workers-plan-civil-disobedience-as-employers-freak-out-over-nlrb-ruling/]:
Photo: St. Louis fast food workers strike for higher wages, better working conditions and a right to unionize, July 2013. (PW)

ST. LOUIS - On the heels of what many are calling a historic convention of over 1,200 fast food workers held in the Chicago suburbs last weekend, the campaign for "$15 and a union" won a major National Labor Relations Board decision that, if upheld, could have significant repercussions throughout the industry - and dramatically change the organizing landscape in favor of low-wage fast food workers [http://www.peoplesworld.org/what-s-next-after-fast-food-global/].
The NLRB's general council on Tuesday ruled that McDonald's could be held "jointly accountable" for labor and wage violations by its franchise operators. Undoubtedly, other fast food chains are paying close attention, as they could potentially face similar rulings.
Of the thousands of McDonald's restaurants in the United States, roughly 90 percent are owned by franchise operators, a fact McDonald's routinely emphasizes in its attempts to stifle demands for higher wages, better benefits and dignity and respect on the job. McDonald's claims wages, hours and benefits are set by franchises owners.
Jeanina Jenkins, a St. Louis McDonald's employee, told People's World, "McDonald's can't hide behind their franchises anymore."
Jenkins, a member of the fast food workers national organizing committee, has worked at McDonald's for 2 ½ years. She is currently making $7.97 an-hour and is scheduled an average of 15 to 20 hours a week. "Hardly enough time or money to help take care of my family - my mother, sister and niece," she said.
According to Julius Getman, a labor law professor at the University of Texas [http://www.peoplesworld.org/fast-food-giants-cost-america-7-bil-in-mctaxes/], "Employers like McDonald's seek to avoid recognizing the rights of their employees by claiming that they are not really their employer, despite exercising control over crucial aspects of the employment relationship." If the recent ruling is upheld, "McDonald's should no longer be able to hide behind its franchisees."
In all, McDonald's employs nearly one million people in the U.S. Turnover is about 150 percent. And while the average fast food worker makes about $8 an-hour, McDonald's CEO, Donald Thompson, made a staggering $9.5 million last year.
The NLRB ruling came after its investigation of 181 claims spanning 20 months, accusing McDonald's and its franchise operators of unfair labor practices, including illegally firing, threatening and otherwise penalizing workers for pro-union activities. The charges were filed in 17 different cities, including St. Louis.
The ruling couldn't come at a worse time for the fast food behemoth, which brings in $27 billion annually in revenue, as fast food workers at the recent convention agreed to dramatically escalate their tactics and organize a wave of civil disobedience actions against fast food chains in the coming months - actions that will undoubtedly bring more attention to the industry's poverty wages and poor working conditions.
"We will do anything, whatever it takes to get $15 and a union," Jenkins added. "Workers are very engaged and ready to do anything, even get arrested."
Jenkins said convention participants were "amped-up and excited," ready to take on the fast food Goliath.
"We are all leaders. We're going to keep building this movement and expand it until they pay us more and we get a union. This is our struggle. This is everybody's struggle. We're in this together. We're going to win."
"The convention was the bomb," Rasheen Aldridge, a St. Louis area strike leader, told peoplesworld.org. "It was great to see so many folks from so many different cities fired-up and ready to go.
"It really showed our growth as a movement and helped us gear-up for the next round of strikes. We're working together state by state, city by city, building solidarity."
In all, fast food workers from 30 cities attended the convention. They discussed tactics and where to go from here. And ultimately, agreed to embark on an unprecedented wave of civil disobedience.
"We're building an army of fast food workers," Aldridge concluded. "We're going to do whatever it takes to win."
Ultimately, the NLRB ruling will be taken to administrative law judges. If the judges uphold the ruling McDonald's is likely to appeal to the five-member labor board in Washington, D.C. The case could potentially end up in the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the favorable NLRB decision comes as the AFL-CIO executive council meets to discuss a number of issues critical to working people, including union organizing.
"Under President Obama the NLRB has been getting better and better at issuing rulings that help workers. Remember though that this is as it should be. The NLRB, under U.S labor law, is there to protect and extend collective bargaining rights. This ruling will go far to help do that," said Bill Samuels the AFL-CIO's legislative director.
Companies like McDonald's will have a harder time avoiding responsibility for violating labor law and blocking union organizing efforts.
While the workers suing McDonald's are not union members yet, they do belong to a voluntary membership organization that does not have collective bargaining rights, like traditional unions.
However, "These organizations are going to be very important to the future of labor organizing in America," said Larry Cohen, director of organizing for the AFL-CIO and president of the Communications Workers Union of America. "We're going to see more and more of this kind of organizing."
One fast food leader put it like this: "The business community is scared. This ruling has far-reaching implications on all types of work, not just the fast food industry. They are pretty freaked out."

The facts about saving Social Security for ours and future generations

"Generational Warriors? Secure Your Wallet"
2014-07-17 by Jenny Brown [http://labornotes.org/blogs/2014/07/generational-warriors-secure-your-wallet]:

My mother just turned 78, and it was an occasion for both of us to reflect on what a great program Social Security is.
Despite a 20-year career in a technical field, her pension is diddly-squat. It doesn’t adjust for inflation, and several years ago the plan stopped covering the drug gap left by Medicare. However, thanks to Social Security, she’s financially independent. Savings can run out, but Social Security will be there however long she lives.
That’s cause for me to celebrate, too. This is what those trying to drum up a war between the generations don’t want us to understand.
They claim Social Security won’t be there for younger folks when we retire (true only if the privatizers get their way)—but carefully avoid mentioning that Social Security is there for us now, supporting our parents.
I’m an only child. Without Social Security, my mother would be dependent on me. I’d have to find a second job—or hit the pavement for something more lucrative and less meaningful than Labor Notes.
What about the generation after me—dubbed “Generation F*@%d” due to the horrible job market—who are working low-wage jobs and only avoiding homelessness by staying in their parents’ spare room? They’re benefiting too. Without Social Security, Grandma and Grandpa would be in the spare room, and they’d be on the couch.
That doesn’t even count the crucial support Social Security provides for children who lose a parent, and the disabled.

YOUNG VS. OLD?
Social Security cutters want the young to stop thinking like Occupy Wall Street, “99% vs. 1%,” and start thinking like the Cato Institute, “young vs. old.” Cato has been trying since 1983 to undermine support for Social Security by creating doubts among the young that it will be there for them when they retire.
It’s failed again and again, but the idea lives on, zombie-like. New York Times op-ed liberal Frank Bruni fretted in June that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will take up 14.3 percent of GDP by the year 2038 (they account for 10 percent now).
There’s just no money for the young, he worried. The federal budget will increasingly be taken up by expenditures that he imagines help only Big Old.
Of course, these budget items only stand out because the rest of government is being slashed to the marrow to provide tax cuts and subsidies for millionaires and billionaires.

MAKE IT BETTER -
One way to secure Social Security is to make it better. The retirement age is too high, and for lots of retirees, the check is not enough for a decent existence.
We could start by taxing the whole paychecks of the overpaid, instead of, as the law stands now, just the first $117,000. You and I and our employers together pay 12.4 percent of our income in Social Security taxes. Because of the $117,000 cap, someone pulling down $500,000 a year pays only 2.9 percent.
Another way to strengthen Social Security is to raise the minimum wage.
It’s not news that of all the income in the U.S., the portion paid in wages has been going down, while profits accruing to the already-super-rich have been going up. But wages are the only part of the economy that get taxed for Social Security, while profits and stock dividends don’t.
Raise the minimum to $15, and you’ll not only make a lot of crappy jobs more livable—you’ll also increase the portion of economic output going to Social Security, and decrease the portion going to the owners of McDonald’s and Walmart.
More for the workers, more for retirees, less for the owners, for a truly cross-generational win.

Teamsters for a Democratic Union fight back against corrupt union management

"Hoffa Threatens Teamster Democracy"2014-07-16 by Ken Paff for "Labor Notes" [http://labornotes.org/2014/07/hoffa-threatens-teamster-democracy]:
Ken Paff is the national organizer of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, [www.TDU.org]
---
Local 805 President Sandy Pope campaigned against Hoffa in 2011. Teamster brass face a different outlook this time, as the 2016 election approaches amid a wave of member anger at concessions. So they're taking aim at members' right to vote. Photo: TDU.

Facing fresh member dissatisfaction, Teamster President James Hoffa and his Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall are headed to court to try to make contested Teamster elections a thing of the past.
Whether they succeed will determine the future of one of North America’s most powerful unions. Will it continue to manage decline and concessions, or tap the power of organized transport and distribution workers to reverse them?
The 1.25 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) is unique among the largest North American unions in that every five years it has a hotly contested rank-and-file election for the top leadership.
The right to vote is protected by a 1989 consent order, a court-approved agreement that Teamster officers reluctantly accepted to avoid a racketeering trial.
In that landmark legal case, the reform movement Teamsters for a Democratic Union intervened to oppose court-imposed government oversight of the union’s operations. Instead, to root out systemic corruption, TDU proposed that members directly elect top officers.
Previously, Teamster presidents were elected at conventions. The 1986 “election” gave incumbent Jackie Presser 99 percent of the vote.

USING THE VOTE -
TDU’s blueprint was largely adopted, and 1991 saw the first-ever election. Members used their new vote to elect a whole new leadership slate, headed by Ron Carey. The candidate who’d gotten 1 percent under the old system, Sam Theodus, easily won the rank-and-file vote for vice president.
The election rocked not only the Teamsters, but the labor movement. The first-ever contested election in the AFL-CIO quickly followed.
After Carey won again in 1996, defeating Hoffa, he led UPS workers out on strike in 1997. With bold demands such as 10,000 more full-time jobs (with the rallying cry, “Part-Time America Won’t Work”) and innovative tactics that evolved over the year of rank-and-file organizing leading up it, this strike started to put labor on the offensive.
That success was tragically cut short later that year when aides to Carey were found engaging in illegal campaign fundraising. The scandal paved the way for Hoffa’s rise and the old guard’s return to power.
Now the Hoffa administration has taken the first step to try to end the consent order by submitting a letter to federal judge Loretta Preska. The IBT claims the consent order is no longer needed because the union is reformed.
The U.S. Attorney and TDU have submitted letters opposing the change. TDU is also intervening in the court proceedings and has launched a campaign to defend the right to vote.
TDU agrees that mob control of the union has diminished—precisely because the right to vote has given members a tool to tackle corruption and hold leaders accountable.
Other unions have membership elections in their constitution, but what makes the Teamsters unique is independently supervised elections, coupled with an organized national reform movement of leaders, activists, and members. It’s TDU that gives life to members’ right to vote.

‘GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT’ -
Hoffa and Hall claim their goal is to end government oversight. But their real target is the one-member, one-vote elections.
To be clear, there is no “government oversight” of any of the union’s operations—not bargaining, political action, organizing, contract campaigns, budgets, salaries, or hiring and firing.
Instead, the consent order provides for an Independent Review Board, selected by IBT leadership and the U.S. Attorney, to bring corruption charges against individual officials. And it provides for the right to vote for international officers under fair election rules.
Both are important to members, but the right to vote is the most critical.
Without these rules, the current leaders will be free to change nomination requirements to make it impossible for opposition candidates to get on the ballot.
Currently, nominations for top offices require 5 percent of elected convention delegates. But the incumbents want to raise that bar.
Every challenger to Hoffa has met the 5 percent requirement, but none would have been nominated if 10 percent were required—though each, once nominated, ran a competitive race and forced national debates on the union’s direction.
Teamster leaders have already amended the IBT constitution so the board can write its own rules for any election and pick the election supervisor. For now, these amendments are trumped by the provisions of the consent order.
But if the consent order were lifted, these safeguards would go out the window.
So would election rules that partially level the playing field by providing opposition campaigners’ access to employer parking lots, “battle pages” of campaign material in the Teamster magazine, and fair rules for delegate elections.

WHY NOW?
Hoffa and Hall have good reason to make this move now. Hoffa, who won reelection in 2011 with 59 percent of the vote, faces a different political outlook as the 2015-2016 campaign approaches.
Over the past year, the majority of members in the freight industry, UPS Freight, and UPS have all voted to reject concessions in their contracts—only to have them imposed by Hoffa and Hall.
The Vote No movement helped launch a new formation, Take Back Our Union, that’s already organizing meetings to plan for the 2016 election.
Hoffa won most of the UPS locals in 2011. But his prospects among that group of 250,000 Teamsters look much dimmer today. And dissatisfaction is not limited to just UPS and trucking Teamsters: Hoffa’s policy of retreat has led to defeats and lackluster organizing in warehousing, delivery, public service, airlines, and other Teamster fields.
Take Back Our Union has started to forge a coalition of the opposition forces in the union, bringing together TDU, which backed New York Local 805 President Sandy Pope in the 2011 election, and other local officials who ran on a separate slate.
Combined, these contenders won 41 percent last time—and that was before this wave of membership anger at concessions.
Once again, members are gearing up to take the wheel of the union.