This site is back

Hey Folks, I am starting this blog back up.  I must admit, I was very discouraged for a little while.  I really thought there were some folks onboard who turned out to be nothing but traders.  I have come to realize they are nothing but are a reflection of this company meaning they are untrustworthy, without integrity, and will stick you or me in the back just to get ahead.   It is ok, I am convinced this is a worthy cause and I am going to stick with it.  I will always hold the belief that employees, sticking together, can negotiate a better life for themselves as opposed to management dictation.    

I still invite a credible argument against the union.  I have only read cut-downs and useless garbage from those who oppose.  No one can say I have not posted the facts.  I have posted contracts and every fact I have posted is backed up with a reference.  If you do not take the time to do so yourself, then you are incompetent and should probably keep quiet.  Leave the blogging to the folks who really want to have an intelligent debate. 

Now, there is something I find very hard to understand.  Why do you sale yourselves for cake or an office cookout?  Do you not realize these are just mitigating tactics used by management?  I guarantee you they have discussed how they can keep employees happy without paying them what they are worth.  Why do you show up with a smiling face and just buy into it?  I say forget the cake and burgers.  That is not what I work for.  I don’t care if anyone knows my birthday or how long I have worked at the company during safety meetings. Especially when I know it is nothing but blowing smoke.   Does anyone else share this opinion?  Management, how about instead of worrying about cake, burgers, and birthdays; worry about giving me an honest evaluation when it comes time for a raise.  Oh no, we know that is never going to happen.  How about when you want me to set goals you tell me what the outcome will be if I achieve or don’t achieve them.  This is respect; not cake and burgers.  The contract you make us sign each year is a joke.  It only makes the employee accountable; not you.

Not private anymore

The union can’t stand back and hide like management can. It’s the way the unions are able to be out in the open. However Cnp hides behind closed doors and behind tree’s, etc.! The word is out and now management knows that the union is here even in the south! Just ask the Hot Springs supervisor ! He showed up to the union meeting and was invited to sit down and have dialog with Bernie LaBelle. But he declined! It is against the law for the supervisor of Cnp to attend these functions to try to intimidate employee’s! If anyone has any concerns you should contact www.uwua.com for complete set of rules or check it out on previous blog titled: what they can or can’t do. This is a clear example of the underhanded strategies that CNP does all the time! That my friends is why you need union for your protection!

If anyone has any questions or concerns Bernie will be more than happy to meet with you to anwer them. Also their web site has most of the answers for you. The problem with people who won’t stand up for themselves is they will never take the step to protect their interest. Thats why the union is needed. The USA was built on these principles and the unions were responsible for fair wages and benifits for all working class citizens! Thanks to unions here! Time to get on board!!

Unions are Good for the Arkansas Economy

The essence of what labor unions do—give workers a stronger voice so that they can get a
fair share of the economic growth they help create—is and has always been important to
making the economy work for all Americans. And unions only become more important as
the economy worsens.
One of the primary reasons why our current recession endures is that workers do not have
the purchasing power they need to drive our economy. Even when times were relatively
good, workers were getting squeezed. Income for the median working age household fell
by about $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, and it could fall even further as the economy
continues to decline.1 Consumer activity accounts for roughly 70 percent of our nation’s
economy, and for a while workers were able to use debt to sustain their consumption. Yet
debt-driven consumption is not sustainable, as we are plainly seeing.
What is sustainable is an economy where workers are adequately rewarded and have the
income they need to purchase goods. This is where unions come in.
Unions paved the way to the middle class for millions of workers in Arkansas and pioneered
benefits such as paid health care and pensions along the way. Even today, union
workers earn significantly more on average than their non-union counterparts, and union
employers are more likely to provide benefits. And non-union workers—particularly in
highly unionized industries—receive financial benefits from employers who increase
wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.
Unfortunately, declining unionization rates mean that workers are less likely to receive
good wages and be rewarded for their increases in productivity. The Employee Free
Choice Act, which is likely to be one of the most important issues debated by the 111th
Congress, holds the promise of boosting unionization rates and improving millions of
Americans’ economic standing and workplace conditions.

Unions help workers achieve higher wages
Union members in Arkansas and across the country earn significantly more than nonunion
workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers’
wages in Arkansas were on average 7.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar
characteristics.2 That means that, all else equal, Arkansas workers that join a union will
earn 7.7 percent more—or $1.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars—than their otherwise
identical non-union counterparts.3
Yet union coverage rates have been declining for several decades. In 1983, the first year for
which state level unionization data is available, 13.8 percent of workers in Arkansas were
either members of a union or represented by a union at their workplace.4 By 2008, that
portion declined to 7.3 percent.

Workers’ wage growth lags as American productivity increases
Workers helped the economy grow during this time period by becoming ever more
productive, but they received only a small share of the new wealth they helped create.
Throughout the middle part of the 20th century—a period when unions were stronger—
American workers generated economic growth by increasing their productivity, and they
were rewarded with higher wages.6 But this link between greater productivity and higher
wages has broken down.
Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers’ wages moved in tandem: as workers
produced more per hour, they saw a commensurate increase in their earnings. Yet wages
and productivity growth have decoupled since the late 1970s. Looking from 1980 to 2008,
nationwide worker productivity grew by 75.0 percent, while workers’ inflation-adjusted
average wages in Arkansas increased by only 22.9 percent, which means that workers were
compensated for only 30.6 percent of their productivity gains.7
The cost of benefits—especially health insurance—has increased over time and now
accounts for a greater share of total compensation than in the past, but this increase
is nowhere near enough to account for the discrepancy between wage and productivity
growth.8 For example, according to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, between 1973 and 2006 the share of labor compensation in the form of benefits
rose from 12.6 percent to 19.5 percent.9
If Arkansas’ workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity
between 1980 and 2008—as they were during the middle part of the 20th century—
average wages would be $23.29 per hour—42.4 percent higher than the average real wage
in 2008.

Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth
Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality.11 But
increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would
benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were
the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant,
new union workers in Arkansas would earn an estimated $166 million more in wages
and salaries per year.12 If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over
current levels, Arkansas’ newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $127 million
more in wages and salaries per year.13 Non-union workers would also benefit as employers
would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

Increased unionization would boost Arkansas’ annual state wages
Union employers are also significantly more likely to provide benefits to their employees.
Union workers nationwide are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided
health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions
compared to workers with similar characteristics who were not in unions.

Nearly three out of five survey respondents from a Peter Hart Research Associates poll
report that they would join a union if they could, but workers attempting to unionize
currently face a hostile legal environment and are commonly intimidated by aggressive
anti-union employers.16 The Employee Free Choice Act would help workers who want to
join a union do so by ensuring fairness in the union selection process with three main provisions:
workers would have a fair and direct path to join unions through a simple majority
sign-up; employers who break the rules governing the unionization process would face
stiffer penalties; and a first contract mediation and arbitration process would be introduced
to thwart bad-faith bargaining.
Passing the Employee Free Choice Act and making it harder for management to threaten
workers seeking to unionize would be good for Arkansas’ workers. It would help boost
workers’ wages and benefits. And putting more money in workers’ pockets would provide
a needed boost for Arkansas’ economy. Increasing unionization is a good way to get out of
our current economic troubles.

Reference: http://images2.americanprogress.org/CAPAF/2009/02/AR_EFCA.pdf

New Contract Posted

Hey guys and gals,  the most recent Minnesota contract is posted.

Answering the Bosses’ Lies About Unions

Answering The Bosses’ Lies About Unions
In the costly series of mandatory meetings held in the summer of 2004, Emerald City management blasted the audience with videos made by union-busting corporations, which attempted to paint all unions as corrupt and self-interested. They also made many arguments attacking unions. Those workers supporting the union were not given an equal amount of time to respond to the charges.
“Unions are corrupt and are only interested in pocketing your union dues”.
No one can deny that there are some corrupt union officials. However, statistics show that only 1% of unions have been tainted with corruption. In comparison 10% of corporations have been tainted with corruption. Owners of corporations, and the corporate-owned mass media, parade these examples of corrupt officials for a purpose. That’s because they are completely hostile to unions, and want to confuse workers who are looking for unions to help them out.
Corruption of unions is always a two-way process involving management collusion. While management opposes unions, once a union is established, management tries to wine and dine union officials in order to get them to see issues their way. They attempt to get the union leadership to ignore their members’ interests by signing sweetheart deals. It’s usually in this situation that union officials get corrupted. The victims in this situation are the workers. Management then points the finger of corruption in the unions as a way of discrediting unions.
Real life examples of corrupt union leaders living high on the hog off members’ dues are very rare. It is a scare tactic that management uses to stop or unions. The most recent and most publicized example was in the Teamsters Union in the 1970s and 1980s. However what they don’t say is how workers in the Teamsters rose up against these leaders, who were voted out of office by a rank and file revolt. Union reform candidates were voted into the leadership of the Teamsters union in 1991.
As we mentioned earlier most of the industries like auto, steel, transportation, construction, used to be low-wage jobs. It was only those workers determination to build unions that changed that. Higher wages, heath care, job security, etc, were won due to the workers’ determination to organize, see through the arguments of the boss, and fight for their rights.
Through unions, workers win better wages, benefits and a voice on the job—and good union jobs mean stronger communities. A few facts to consider:
• Union workers earn an average of 26 percent more than nonunion workers and are more likely to receive healthcare and pension benefits than those without a union.
• In 2002, median weekly earnings for full-time union wage and salary workers were $740, compared with $587 for their nonunion counterparts.
• 79 percent of union workers are covered by pension plans versus 44 percent of nonunion workers.
• 70 percent of union workers have defined-benefit retirement coverage, compared with 16 percent of nonunion workers.
What these arguments of Emerald City management cannot explain away is: how come unionized workplaces pay higher wages and improved benefits compared to non-union workplaces?
“Unions will take dues out of your paycheck, and you will be worse off than you are now”.
We need not fear unions. Yes, we will pay union dues, in the region of $20 or $30 a month. That goes to pay for the expenses of having a union ready and able to fight for our interest. But the argument of management leaves out the fact that a union contract will include a far greater improvement in our wages and conditions. The idea that we will be worse off with the union, because we would have to pay dues, is an attempt by management to confuse us, and has no truth in it.
Of course, Emerald City management matched this argument with their other assertion that they could not pay higher wages. We have already shown that Emerald City is quite capable of doing this if it is pressured to do so. That’s exactly why we are organizing.
But the advantages of a union go far beyond that. A union contract would spell out our rights as workers on issues such as discipline, seniority, job security and other issues on the job. As members of the bargaining unit representing Emerald City workers we would vote on issues that were in our contract that affect us in our workplace. Once voted on, the union contract would set out the rights and privileges we have gained, and establish a grievance procedure to hold management to this agreement. We will set up a steward system where we have an elected representative on the job to deal with management when they attempted to break the contract.
Think about it. At present we have no rights on the job. We have no defense against arbitrary and retaliatory actions by management. The union will be an instrument we can use to stand up to management to ensure they comply with the contract. That’s what management really fears – control of the workplace. That’s why they so ferociously oppose unions.
“Unions are outsiders. They will create an atmosphere of conflict between management and worker”.
It’s funny how management calls the union the ‘outsider.’ It is us, as Emerald City workers, who are organizing the union. We are the organizing committee; we have discussions with our fellow workers and distribute our own material, not some outsider.
Yes, we know we need help from the union to negotiate with management. However, that union is made up of elected representatives from other workers in the restaurant and hotel industry who face situations similar to our own.
Our success in building a powerful union will depend on the willingness of workers to support and participate in this campaign. It is a myth that some ‘outside force’ will be injected into the situation. We are the only “force” at work, not some ‘outsider’.
As for the argument that a union will spoil the relationship between management and workers, it’s exactly because management’s actions are hurting us that we are organizing a union in the first place! We have been forced to form a union to defend ourselves from management.
“The union is powerless to affect anything; they cannot win you any improvements”.
This has already been disproved in this campaign. We have already won a five-cent increase in compensation for the driver for each delivery. That was achieved as a result of only the beginning of our organizing drive.
Our power comes from our ability to act as one and stop production at Emerald City. That’s what will make the company start to make concessions, since they make money only when we work. That is the way we will be able to stand up to Emerald City and Pizza Hut, and for the first time win some control over our workplace. That has to be our guiding light.
The US working class is potentially the most powerful force in this society. Fighting unions won all the benefits now enjoyed by workers over the last 50 years. Dedicated and militant union leaders who looked to mobilize that power of the US working class, and backed by an active and educated membership were able to force management to give back some of their profits and redistribute it back to workers. This is how the labor movement was built. This is what it took to stand up to and defeat General Motors, and defeat them through a 44-day sit-down strike in 1936. It is this tradition that we want to build upon. This is the kind of union we aim to build.
By being members of a union, we will join the labor movement. We would then be able to call on other unions and workers to help us in our struggles. For example, Teamster members have language in their contract giving them the right not to deliver goods across a picket line. This would enormously frustrate management if they attempted to continue doing business if we went on strike. By organizing a union we become much stronger because we’re part of the wider labor movement.
“We are your friends, come to us to talk about your concerns, you don’t need a union to represent you”.
Yes, management has become friendlier in the last couple of months. But, we have to ask the question: why? If they are friendly now, but were not before, what does that tell us about their motives? The answer is that management is trying to get savvy. It is part of the “carrot and stick” strategy. They have become better trained by anti-union companies in ‘how to confuse workers by calling them team members’. We shouldn’t buy it.
In Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser describes the practices of McDonald’s; “the company developed sophisticated methods for keeping unions out of its restaurants. A “flying squad” of experienced managers and corporate executives was sent to a restaurant the moment union activity was suspected. Seemingly informal “rap sessions” were held with disgruntled employees. The workers were encouraged to share their feelings. They were flattered and stroked. And more importantly, they were encouraged to share information about the union’s plans and the names of the union sympathizers. If the rap sessions failed to provide adequate information, the stroking was abandoned for a more direct approach… The company’s guidance has helped McDonald’s franchises defeat literally hundreds of efforts to unionize.”
At a recent Multi-Unit Food server Operators Convention, filled with the CEOs of the major fast food industry, a discussion developed about how to overcome a lack of low wage workers, and maybe the need to move the industry from a workforce based on “low wages” and “high levels of turnover” to one that would “create long-term careers in foodservice”. The issue of how to fight unions came up. David Novak, President of Yum! Brands Inc, who is Emerald City’s boss, described his strategy of giving pep talks, prizes and special awards of plastic chili peppers and rubber chickens. He said that giving employee awards creates greater sense of pride and esteem, showed that management was watching, and it did not cost a lot of money, he said:”we want to be a great Company for the people who make it great.” [Fast Food Nation, page 88.]
Pizza Hut calls this the “CHAMPS” program –a more appropriate name might be the “CHUMPS” program. The idea is basically this: Don’t pay workers a decent wage for busting their asses –instead just give the drooling idiots a cheap card with gold stickers and some glitter on it. Then, like good little monkeys they’ll think that means the company loves them and they’ll work twice as hard so they can get more glitter and gold stickers.
The end result: High productivity, with low pay –and that means more money for Terry Hopkins and David Novak. The bottom line is the dollar sign.
Don’t be a chump. Yes, management may be more pleasant to us as workers now. But that’s based on the own self interest to prevent the union growing. It doesn’t replace a decent pay raise. If we drop our campaign, the smiles will go away.
The Rumor: Management will just close a store if we organize?
Yes, if they can get away with it. The fast food industry is vehemently anti-union, jealously defending their wealth and profits. They will close one store if they think that will isolate a union.
For example, in February 1997, workers at a McDonald’s restaurant in St. Hubert, a suburb of Montreal, applied to join the Teamsters union. More than three quarters of the crew members signed union cards. McDonald’s fought this in the courts for a year. A final certification hearing was planned for March 10th1998. But, on Friday 13th 1998, before the hearing could be held, McDonald’s shut down the store for good. Management claimed it was a money-loser, though it had operated continuously at the same location for 17 years.
In Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser describes another example: “During the early 1970s, workers were successfully organizing a McDonald’s in Lansing, Michigan. All the crew members were fired, the restaurant was shut down, a new McDonald’s was built down the block – and the workers who’d signed union cards were not rehired.”
We need to learn a lesson from this. This is the reason we cannot build a union in one store at Emerald city. We know we have to organize citywide in the Tacoma area. We know they will not close all the stores in the Tacoma area. Otherwise they will lose all their profits – and that’s what they are after. We know this makes our task harder task, but this is the only way to prevent management from closing one store, and defeating us. We have a lot of support in some Tacoma stores, and aim to continue building support in the other stores. This will give us much more power to force the company to negotiate with us.
The strategy of ‘threatening to close the store’ is a weapon that is open only to the larger franchises. Most local fast food chains don’t have the capital to pull such a thing off. It is only an idle threat to try to intimidate us. The bottom-line is that the big fast food chains are not going to abandon the Tacoma area as a source of income to be exploited by their rivals. We have to demand they pay a living wage if they want to do business in Tacoma.
Does this sound familiar to you? I know the above article is in regard to a different business, but the arguments from management are relatively the same. Come Monday, you are probably going to hear a lot of the same management arguments you heard the last time. None of it holds water. They will pretend like they are your friends and try to create doubt by giving biased reasons why you are better off without a union. They will way “we know what is best for you.” I have posted nothing but referenced factual evidence, in the last month that proves a union will do nothing but improve your quality of life. The only people that will tell you it is not are those that make a living off the hard work of other people or those who think they will be a supervisor one day if they continue stay tight with the boss. I guarantee you they are just going to ask you what is wrong, how it can be fixed without a union, and give you emotional pleas not to sign a card. We all know it is not going to be fixed with the current management that is in place. They have proven their agenda is not in the employee’s interest, but only to return a profit to Houston. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with returning a profit, but the employees deserve better treatment than they have received.
I want to leave you with this. Management is going to say we don’t need representation. Don’t you find it ironic that the second we start to organize they run to Houston for a representative to help them plead their case; sounds a bit hypocritical too me.

An Excellent Read

The following testimony on the importance of unions to restoring a solid middle class was given to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Tuesday, March 10, by Dr. Paula B. Voos, a professor in the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers, and an EPI research associate.
Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider the role unions can play in rebuilding the American middle class, a matter of utmost importance not only for ending the current economic downturn, but also for our nation in the longer term. As an economist, I have been studying the role unions play in our economy for some time and in 1993-94, I had the opportunity to serve on the Dunlop Commission in its consideration of how labor law should be modernized to serve the “Future of Worker Management Relations in the United States.”
There is now a substantial body of research evidence on the economic impact of U.S. unions. Unions typically:
- Raise the wages of the employees they represent;
- Increase the fringe benefits of those same employees, usually by a greater extent than they increase wages;
- Reduce income inequality within the represented firm, by reducing differentials between low-paid and high-paid employees, men and women, various racial/ethnic groups, younger and older employees, and so forth;
- Increase pay of nonunion workers in occupations and industries with substantial union presence as nonunion employers move closer to union standards;
- Reduce income inequality in the wider society by reducing inequality not only within and between represented firms, but also across entire industries as nonunion employers increase compensation to discourage unionization, all of which strengthens the middle class (Card, Lemieux, and Riddell, 2007).
- Reduce employee turnover by lessening the number of quits (voluntary separations); and
- Thus increase the retention of skilled employees, enhancing human capital and productivity in both the firm and the economy as a whole;
(See Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Bennett and Kaufman, 2007).
Furthermore:
- Because they suffer less turnover, unionized employers have greater incentives for employee training and for high-skill, high commitment human resource policies, rather than low-skill, high-turnover or other “low road” approaches to human resources. Reduced turnover avoids costs to employers but also lessens society’s costs associated with unemployment, such as Food Stamps, uncompensated care and other social programs.
- Union-represented employees have been found to be more productive, on average. This is probably both due to the fact they have more work experience and due to greater employer investments in them and in physical capital (see Doucouliagos and Laroche 2003 for an overview of seventy-three statistically independent studies);
- The nature of the labor-management relationship is crucial in this regard: good union-management relationships are ones that foster high workforce productivity, but workplaces characterized by labor strife and worker resentment—whether union or non-union—do not (Belman, 1992).
- Union employees typically cannot be disciplined or discharged without a reason, termed “just cause.” This assurance of fair treatment is one reason union employees have greater “voice” than non-union employees and typically are more willing to make suggestions or speak up to improve business operations.
The most important reason to improve the ability of employees to organize into unions is that such membership is a fundamental right in democratic societies, related to freedom of association and the right of all human beings to band together to improve their lives. For that reason alone, I would urge you to pass legislation to make real in the U.S. once again the promise of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 1 of that Act puts federal law behind “the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and … the exercise by workers of the full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing.” (NLRA Sec. 1).
Nonetheless, some may be concerned with the economic consequences of increased unionization at this moment in time. They should be assured that the economic consequences would be positive. There are two main reasons:
- First, greater union membership would help the United States recover from the current economic downturn and help prevent future economic crises.
- And second, greater union membership would help the United States make the transition to competing internationally on the basis of high productivity, high quality, and innovation, rather than on the basis of low wage labor or long hours – a race to the bottom that we can never win against nations like China.
Let me explain.
The Economic Crisis and the Middle Class
The growth of income inequality in the U.S. and the related decline of the middle class are critical factors in the current economic crisis: the collapse in the housing market, the crisis of inadequate capital in the nation’s banking institutions, the decline in the stock market, the free-fall in consumer spending, declining employment and other aspects of the recession that are worsening daily.

In the early part of this decade, stagnating incomes for the bottom 80 percent of American families led many people to go into excessive debt to meet ordinary needs such as adequate housing—particularly in parts of the country like California in which housing prices and rents had soared. Many took on inappropriate subprime mortgages because low “teaser rates” made them able to afford monthly payments. All this was common in an era in which wages and salaries were failing to rise even though productivity was rising steadily and profits were good.
Meanwhile, at the top of the income distribution, there was an explosion of speculation as the wealthy put their money into multiple homes, hedge funds, securities, and new financial instruments, like bonds securitized by mortgages. This other aspect of inequality of incomes in the U.S.—excessive compensation for CEOs, Wall Street executives, hedge fund managers, and other wealthy individuals—contributed to the bubble that inevitably burst, precipitating the current recession.
In fact, fifty-nine percent of all the income growth since 1989 accrued to the upper one percent of households and about thirty-six percent accrued to the upper tenth of that upper one percent (Mishel et al., 2008). The shift of income to the upper one percent since 1979 (their income share rising from 10% to 22.9%) represents an additional one trillion dollars of income for that group. This type of unbalanced income growth has greatly contributed to our current economic misfortunes.
Increased union organization would tend to shift the income distribution in favor of the middle class, enhancing the purchasing power of this key group of the nation’s consumers and allowing them to once again afford to buy automobiles, homes with 30-year fixed rate mortgages, and all the other goods and services important to American life. Unionization of low-wage service workers similarly would increase purchasing power and help revive the economy. Putting more dollars into the pockets of working families stimulates the American economy – both in the short term and in the long run – because they spend such a high proportion of those dollars here.
It is no accident that the prosperity and consumer boom of the 1950s – a period of unprecedented middle class expansion, broad business growth, increased home ownership, rising consumer spending, and the shared expectation that a college education was within the reach of everyone and that the lives of our children would be better than our own – followed the greatest sustained expansion of unionization in American history.
The notion that greater unionization is harmful to an economic recovery is misguided. Unions, as institutions, and the members that form them are economically rational and do not pursue demands that force firms out of business. There are several studies that show that firms that become unionized (see the review of studies in DiNardo and Lee, 2004) are no more likely to fail than are firms that remain nonunion. If anything, unions are more important in a recession. As was stated in a statement signed by forty prominent economists and released on February 25th, “The current recession will further weaken the ability of workers to bargain individually. More than ever, workers will need to act together.”
Economic recovery and future economic stability depend on a middle class once again having sufficient purchasing power to sustain the economy; we must not rebuild another bubble economy. Greater unionization can contribute to that goal because wages and benefits for ordinary workers will rise and income inequality in the economy as a whole will be reduced. In short, unions help foster the broad middle class that is essential to our nation’s economic strength.
The Long-run Impact on American Competitiveness
A crucial question is whether in an increasingly global economy, U.S. economic competitiveness would be hurt by an increase in union representation. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is little reason to fear in this regard.
First, most parts of the world, including all of the high-end economies with which we compete, have much higher levels of unionization than we do. Those high-end economies also pay higher benefits to their blue-collar workers. Of the 20 richest countries tracked by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States ranks 17th in hourly pay for production workers in manufacturing. This group of trading partners accounts for almost half of total U.S. trade flows (Bivens, 2009). The key difference in competitiveness is not unionization; it is that we burden our businesses, especially our largest corporations, with the high cost of health insurance, whose cost is spread across society in other high-end economies, and the disadvantage of an overvalued currency. In fact, high rates of unionization are associated with smaller trade deficits, a good measure of international competitiveness (Bivens, 2009).
Second, low labor costs are never going to be a reliable basis for U.S. competitiveness in a global economy – rather, the U.S. needs to compete on the basis of innovation, high value-added, high quality, and high productivity. Unionization tends to promote the shift to these latter bases of competition by foreclosing the low-wage alternative.
Unions increase productivity through a variety of channels. They reduce turnover and, hence, firm-specific skills are retained. One benefit is that turnover costs are lowered for employers. Moreover, the lower turnover makes it economically rational for employers to provide more training to union-represented employees, increasing employee skills and productivity further. In addition, since unions increase compensation, firms are incentivized to invest in new technology (which tends to be labor -saving), increasing productivity. Unionized employers also tend to shift to higher value-added goods and services in their product mix. And in sectors in which there are union-supported apprenticeship programs, employers can take advantage of this source of highly-skilled labor.
Research on this topic indicates that there is substantial variation in the “union productivity effect.” The effect is much larger where there is a good relationship between labor and management, whereas in high-conflict situations, there is little likelihood that unions enhance productivity (Belman 1992). Strikes, of course, are particularly deleterious. Hence it is important that public policy not only makes it possible for workers to organize should they so desire, but also that the federal government provides a path to unionization that reduces conflict and gets the labor management relationship off to a good start.
In fact, this was part of the reasoning behind the National Labor Relations Act when it was passed in 1935. Section 1 of that Act, quoted earlier, speaks about the need to protect commerce “from injury, impairment, or interruption… by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employees and employers.” The idea in 1935 was that if employers were legally required to recognize and bargain with their employees’ chosen representatives, recognition strikes would be unnecessary and contentious disputes over wage and working conditions would be channeled into the collective bargaining process, to the benefit of all.
Unfortunately, because of a series of changes in the interpretation of the law over time, employers are now able to insist that before collective bargaining can commence, employees must prove their support for their chosen bargaining representative through an election process that is so conflict-laden that it fails to fulfill the purpose of getting collective bargaining relationships off to a constructive beginning. The waiting period prior to an NLRB representation election creates a period of counterproductive labor-management strife that increases workplace tension and undoubtedly hurts workplace productivity. Even when employees win the right to representation through an election, they are often unable to negotiate a first contract. This occurs because the strike is the dispute resolution procedure when the parties are unable to agree on a contract. American workers often don’t want to strike, and yet they often cannot get a first contract without a successful strike. The entire representation election process is still extremely conflict-laden and is ripe for reform. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act is one option that shows particular promise to lessen labor-management conflict during the unionization stage.
In short, we can be competitive while allowing American employees to exercise their rights to form a union. To do so, we need a way for workers who want union representation to organize in a less conflict-laden way and to initiate a constructive labor-management relationship.
What About Small Business?

Another issue is whether small business would be particularly disadvantaged if employees who wanted union representation had an easier way of organizing than the current NLRB process. There are several reasons to doubt that would be the case.
For one reason, small employers often have a different employment atmosphere than that which exists in large bureaucratic organizations; it may well be that employees in small firms have little demand for union representation. Interestingly, rates of union representation in small employers are currently lower than those in larger organizations in the United States, even though unions are in fact more likely to win representation elections in small than in large units. This means many small business owners should not be overly concerned about possible changes in the law governing union organizing.
At the same time, individuals who work in small business should have the same rights to freedom of association and union representation as anyone else. So if the employees of a small employer do form a union, what then?
Actually, there can be substantial benefits to small business from union representation. When an industry is characterized by many small employers, each firm can benefit from area-wide unionization that standardizes compensation across competing firms, stabilizing the industry. The union provides a pool of well-trained labor that becomes attached to the industry. Moreover, the union often serves important functions in training and benefit-provision for the entire set of employer signatories to a union contract. Furthermore, unions recognize the need to preserve and enhance the competitiveness of unionized employers. Unions organizing small businesses in the service sector often defer negotiated wage increases until the majority of competing employers are also unionized, and give newly unionized firms several years to catch up to union contract levels. Contrary to popular opinion, unions, like businesses, also act in an economic rationally manner.
In short, while I doubt that a new process of union formation would cause an explosion of union representation in small firms, if some small business sectors were to be organized because their employees are frustrated with current conditions and seek change, that could provide positive benefits for small businesses and their employees.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, I urge you to enact changes in our nation’s labor law that would make it easier for workers to organize, should they so desire, to obtain an initial agreement, and to build a successful working relationship with their employer, free of unnecessary labor-management conflict.
The restoration of a strong middle class is indispensable to the restoration of the American economy. Unions are an essential part of rebuilding that middle class.
References:
Bivens, Josh. 2009. Squandering the Blue-Collar Advantage, EPI Briefing Paper #229, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC. February 12, 2009.
Belman, Dale. 1992. “Unions, the Quality of Labor Relations and Firm Performance,” in Larry Mishel and Paula B. Voos, eds., Unions and Economic Competitiveness. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Bennett, James T. and Bruce E. Kaufman, eds. 2007. What Do Unions Do? A Twenty-Year Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers.
Card, David, Thomas Lemieux, and W. Craig Riddell, “Unions and Wage Inequality,” in Bennett and Kaufman, op. cit., 2007.
“DiNardo, John and David Lee. 2004 “Economic Impacts of New Unionization On Private Sector Employers: 1984-2001”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (November).
Doucouliagos, Chris (Hristos) and Patric Laroche. 2003. What Do Unions Do to Productivity? A Meta-Analysis.” Industrial Relations, 42 (October): 650-91.
Freeman, Richard B. and James L. Medoff. 1984. What Do Unions Do? New York, Basic Books.
Mishel et al. The State of Working America 2008/09, Economic Policy Institute Series, Cornell University Press, 2008.

Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=how+unions+can+help+restore+the+middle+class&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

Middle Class in Arkansas

Middle-class households in Arkansas nearing retirement face a high risk of outliving their financial assets. With fewer workers having guaranteed sources of retirement income, households approaching retirement in Arkansas face increased longevity, investment and inflation risk with less lifetime guaranteed income.
Ernst & Young LLP estimated the retirement vulnerability of middle-class workers in Arkansas, seven years before retirement and at retirement. Their analysis found:
• More than three quarters of middle-income Arkansas households seven years from retirement (near-retirees) can expect to outlive their financial assets if they attempt to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living.
• Over three out of five middle-class Arkansas new retirees can expect to outlive their financial assets.
• Nine out of ten near retirees and more than eight out of ten new retirees without an employer pension plan in Arkansas are likely to outlive their assets.
• Married couples are more likely to outlive their financial assets, due to their longer joint life spans, than single households. Single females are more likely to outlive their assets than single males.
• Near retirees in Arkansas would have to reduce their standard of living on average by almost 42% to reduce the likelihood of outliving their financial assets (failure rate) to only five percent.
• New retirees in Arkansas would have to reduce their standard of living on average by 30% to reduce the likelihood of outliving their assets to only a five percent failure rate.
The study finds that Arkansas retirees would be much better prepared to have a financially secure retirement if they have a guaranteed source of retirement income beyond Social Security, such as annuities and defined benefit plans. Retirees with these guaranteed sources of retirement income are dramatically less likely to outlive their savings in retirement.

Reference: http://www.paycheckforlife.org/uploads/ASR%20ARKANSAS_css.pdf

One question, do you feel like you are prepared the way things are right now?

What Management Can’t Do

1. Attend any union meetings, park across the street from a union hall to see who is in attendance, or engage in any undercover activity which would indicate that the employees are being kept under surveillance to determine who is and who is not attending union programs.
2. Tell employees that the company will punish or fire them for engaging in union activities.
3. Lay off or discharge any employee for union activity.
4. Grant employees wage increased or special concessions in order to keep the union out.
5. Bar company employee union representatives from soliciting union memberships during non-working hours.
6. Ask employee about confidential union matters, meetings, etc. (Some employees of their own accord, walk up and tell of such matters. It is not an unfair labor practice to listen, but to ask questions to obtain additional information is illegal.
7. Ask employees what they think about the union or union reps.
8. Ask employees how they intend to vote.
9. Threaten employees with economic reprisal for participating in union activities.
10. Promise benefits to employees if they reject the union.
11. Give financial support or other assistance to a union or employees, regardless of whether or not they are supporting or oppose the union.
12. Announce that the company will not deal with the union.
13. Ask employees if they belong to a union or whether or not they have signed up for a union.
14. Ask an employee, during an interview, about his affiliation with a union.
15. Make anti-union statements or actions that might show preference for a non-union man.
16. Make distinctions between union and non-union employees when assigning overtime work or desirable work.
17. Purposely team up non-union men and keep them apart from those supporting the labor organization.
18. Transfer workers on the basis of union affiliations or relationships.
19. Choose men to be laid off on the basis of weakening the union’s strength or discouraging membership in it.
20. Discriminate against union people when disciplining employees.
21. By the nature of the work assignment, create conditions intended to get rid of employees because of their union affiliation.
22. Discipline union employees for a particular action and permit non-union employees to go unpunished for the same action.
23. Deviate from Company policy for the purpose of getting rid of union supporters.
24. Take actions the adversely affect an employee’s job or pay rate because of union activity.
25. Become involved in arguments that may lead to a physical encounter with an employee over the union question.
26. Threaten a union member through a third party.
27. Threaten workers or coerce them in an attempt to influence their vote.
28. Promise employees a reward or a future benefit if they decide “no union.”
29. Tell employees overtime work (and premium pay) will be discontinued if you unionize.
30. Say unionization will force the company to lay off employees.
31. Say unionization will take away vacation, benefits, or privileges that are currently in effect.
32. Promise employees promotions, raise or other benefits if they get out of the union or refrain from joining it.
33. Start a petition or circular against the union or encourage or take part in its circulation if started by employees.
34. Encourage employees to try to induce others to oppose the union or keep out of it.
35. Visit the homes of employees to urge them to reject the union.

Reply to a Few Recent Comments

There was a recent comment asking me to define the meaning of “open forum.” I did not allow the comment to be public because the chosen screen name was inappropriate and could be offensive to some readers. I want to reiterate my prior statement that I will allow anyone a voice on this site as long as they do not name a manager or supervisor by name or location, release private company information, degrade another employee or area, and or use inappropriate language. Our goal is not vindictive in nature and I will not allow a manager or supervisor to be degraded on this site. We do not wish harm to the company but only seek a working environment that is fair and balanced.
By “open forum” I mean an environment, for discussion, that allows employees the ability to express their opinions without fear of reprisal from management.
I would also like to address another post which stated “I don’t see many anti-union views in this alleged “open forum”, so much for a non-biased discussion.” That is true you did not see many because you are the first person to show any hint of opposition. I also allowed your comment to be made public so this should show we are willing to hear anyone’s opinion. I also open the floor to anyone, opposed or for unionization, to post on the main blog. If you want to research and present your case for easier reading access, just email it to me at voteunion01@hotmail.com. I will make it so. I promise you, this is more freedom than you have with the management at Centerpoint.

Think a Union will not Stand Beside You?

I would like to discuss an instance where the union, Gas Workers Local 340 in Minneapolis, arbitrated on behalf of an employee and saved his job. The arbitration is in reference to an employee named Jeffrey W. Jacobs, and took place on July 10, 2006. Centerpoint Energy and the employee agreed upon a LCA (last chance agreement) on January 4, 2005. The company argued the employee violated the terms of the agreement and chose to terminate him. The major issue of the arbitration was if the company had the right to terminate the employee, and if not, what will be the remedy?

There are a number of stipulations in the agreement. The document is hyperlinked in the references below and you can read the entire document at that site. I want to hit a few key points discussed in the arbitration and discuss what I really believed was going on. If you read the document, and would like to share your views, you are invited to comment.

One stipulation of the agreement was that the employee must perform his work in a satisfactory manner and must meet standards (i.e. 3.0 or higher) on an overall basis each MONTH on the following Home Service Plus performance and productivity measures. The company argued that the employee did not meet this agreement and should be terminated. The employee did in fact meet all standards from January through August, but failed to meet the standard in September with a score of 2.75. How many months did the employee meet the standard? Count them: 8 MONTHS. So for eight months this employee met the standard and was going to be fired for falling just below 3.0 in one month. The union argued the company was waiting in ambush for the employee to fall below the standard. They in fact did not terminate the employee until after September, which by the way was a month he exceeded the standard. The rule was in favor of the employee on this matter.

Another argument for the company was the employee did not have a valid driver’s license while operating a company vehicle. The employee agreed this had happened, but informed them he had moved and did not receive notice off his expired license. Once he noticed the expiration he immediately renewed them. The Union argued the employee may have violated a more general work rule, but did not violate the terms of the LCA. In fact, the LCA only defined terms regarding safety and other work regulations. There was no mention of driver’s license. In fact, the laws of Minnesota aren’t anywhere near this harsh. If the employee had happened to be pulled over by authorities, they may have given him a ticket and let him drive anyway. This rule was also in favor of the employee. It was noted the punishment was draconian in nature and too harsh.

The third violation in question was the employee did not meet the agreement on percent of first call completions. The union argued the percent of first call completions was affected by the lack of parts needed to make those completions. The employee even notified his supervisor of the issue, and she acknowledged it. This rule was also in favor of the employee.

Jeffrey Jacobs did not receive back pay for the missed work days, but he was fully reinstated to his job.

Now, I want you to put yourself in Mr. Jacob’s shoes. Keep in mind he has worked for Centerpoint Energy for 27 years. What do you think would have happened to him if he did not have Union representation? Would he still have a job? Personally, I think they wanted him gone before it was time to retire. Tell me if there is truth in this next sentence. IF YOU HAVE WORKED HERE FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS THIS IS PROBABLY WHERE YOU PLAN ON STAYING UNTIL RETIREMENT. Folks, we are all going to be in this boat one day. Even if you are younger try to look at what waits for you in the future. Talk to those who have been around for a while. They are full of wisdom and have seen how things have changed over the years. We will be much better off if we join together rather than move forward as individuals. These cards are going out soon. When you receive it think about what it means for future. It is your ticket to security and an improved quality of life.

I want to welcome our fellow employees, from the Southern and Central Districts, in our journey toward a better life. Do not be mistaken, we are making the right decision regardless of the management’s opinion. If we stand together, as a state, we will have more control over our future. I ask each and every one of you to share, on this site, what is said in those meetings coming up in the next few weeks. It is vital we keep an open line of communication between the districts. Even if we get enough cards in the fight is still not over. We must remain vigilant and continue motivating and educating each other on the benefits of unionization. You can expect a strong response from Centerpoint but do not stumble. At the end lies a better quality of life for each of us. Remember, if you need cards for your town or district, email me at voteunion01@hotmail.com. I know some of you do not feel comfortable emailing so I will soon post the numbers and email to union organizers. You can contact them directly. Your information will never be known to anyone at Centerpoint Energy.

DECISION AND AWARD OF ARBITRATOR
FMCS CASE # 060202-53349-7

JEFFREY W. JACOBS
ARBITRATOR
July 10, 2006

http://www.bms.state.mn.us/documents/awards/Centerpointe%20energy%20and%20340.pdf