Tag Archives: EFCA

Uncategorized

Workers Rally for Free Choice Rights

12 Comments

(cross-posted from Working Californians also up at Daily Kos)

The voices of the casino workers were heard within the Capitol today.  Hundreds of red-shirted workers gathered on the North steps for a rally and then marched inside in an orderly fashion to do some lobbying.  The event culminated as over two hundred UNITE-HERE members chanted from the second story of the rotunda “¡Si, Se Puede!” just steps from the office of Speaker Fabian Nunez.  The dome amplified the chants as staffers poked their heads out of their office doors and the CHP scrambled to ensure the direct action did not get out of control.

The events today were the last big push by the workers to ensure that workers rights were included in the Indian gaming compacts that the legislature is about to vote on.  At issue are the basic workers rights protections that workers have under California law.  In particular, the right to use check cards to indicate the desire of workers to form a union. 

It is that exact right that is actually being heard in the U.S. Senate ironically today, as part of the Employee Free Choice Act.  The Democratic leadership here in the state legislature has been indicating that they are siding with the tribes on the establishment of right to work colonies in the casinos.  Dozens of labor leaders, including Working Californians’ co-chairs Marvin Kropke and Brian D’Arcy signed on to a letter to Senator Perata and Speaker Nunez recently.  Here is an excerpt from that letter:

In contrast to most previous compacts submitted by the Governor in 2004, this compact—and presumably others to come—removes from the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance the right for tribal casino workers (who are virtually all not tribal members) to freely choose whether they want unionization through card check, and to establish a level playing eld for their pursuit of decent wages, benets and working conditions. Instead, the Governor has reverted to the 1999 procedures for unionization, even though Speaker Núñez and Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero conducted a detailed study of those procedures and found them severely decient and ineffective.

The U.S. House of Representatives, led by California’s own Nancy Pelosi and George Miller, with the support of every California House Democrat, recently voted to approve the card check procedure of organizing as a reform of the National Labor Relations Act. A super majority of California Assembly and Senate Democrats signed a letter of support for that legislation. Unfortunately, even if this effort should succeed, the enforceable jurisdiction of national labor law will not be settled law at tribal casinos for many years to come, if ever. In contrast, the card check procedure of organizing has become the standard in commercial gaming, and many tribal casinos, throughout our country and Canada. It would be ironic in the extreme for the California legislature, led by Democrats, to reject card check at the same time that California’s congressional delegation is leading the way on the same issue.


It is doubly ironic that the day of the rally is the day as debate begun on S. 1041 (EFCA).  Indeed thousands of fellow brothers and sisters gathered on the National Mall today as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Dick Durbin, Edward M. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders spoke to the crowd about the importance of passing the Employee Free Choice Act. (photo of Sen. Brown speaking from democrats.senate.gov)


Meanwhile, I watched AFL-CIO Labor Fedration head Art Pulaski work hard today to explain to Nanette Mirada of ABC 7 why secrete ballot elections are not fair in practice.  It is clear that there is a real lack of education on the issue.  He used the example of the tribes scheduling several “educational” meetings on unionization, or deliberately making security guards fill out their ballots under video cameras and other intimidation tactics.  He also patiently explained that workers do not have access to workers compensation and other benefits since they are working on the reservation.

Pulaski also went into the politics of the fight and vaguely threatened the Democratic leadership.  Pulaski referred to the gathered workers as the “ground troops” for the election, noting that they would not be particularly motivated in upcoming elections if they lost this battle now.  “Money talks inside the capitol…and the odds are stacked against these workers” he said, referring to the large amount of donations the legislators have received from the gaming tribes.

More from the letter:

It is incomprehensible how California, in a period when the state is relying more and more on service sector jobs for economic development, could enact compacts which will create the largest expansion of gaming in American history with no clear path to the middle class for a work force eclipsing 60,000 workers, soon to be 100,000 workers, who are the engine behind this extraordinarily lucrative industry.

All the workers want is that the new compacts include the same rights as the 2004 Compacts did, nothing more.  Already, 5,000 tribal gaming employees have chosen unionization.  That choice has improved their lives and communities and simultaneously relived the Californian taxpayers of the burden of their health care costs and other social services for the working poor.  If the Democratic Congress can support these basic rights, so should the Democratic State Legislature in California.

More pictures in my flickr set.

Uncategorized

Albertsons Breaking Laws and Intimidating Workers

6 Comments

(Now cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos for your reading pleasure… And oh yes, please sign the UFCW petition to show your support for the grocery workers! – promoted by atdleft)

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

The dirty tricks have begun again.  We really shouldn’t be surprised that the grocery stores would resort to breaking the law, in an attempt to weaken the workers negotiating position.  After all, three years ago Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons entered into an illegal pact to share their profits, in order to outlast the worker strike.  That landed them in court facing anti-trust charges.  And just last year, Ralphs plead guilty to fraud charges and lying to the government.  It was part of their scheme to use fake social security numbers to hire strikebreakers during the last contract dispute.  They paid $70 million in fines and were placed on three years’ probation.

Albertson’s faced a strike vote Sunday and they immediately dug back into their bag of dirty tricks.  They violated the National Labor Relations Act in the following ways:

  • Sending home union activists to prevent them from speaking with fellow workers

  • Keeping records of employee preferences on the strike authorization vote

  • Directly asking workers how they were going to vote

Due to the weakness of the NLRB, it will be years until they will receive their light slaps on the wrist, if ever.  It is another stark reminder of the necessity for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Billy Gonzalez an Albertsons Produce Clerk and UFCW Local 1428 member penned an email today about these outrageous violations of federal law.  He says:

I’m writing to you about this because we have to stand up to Albertsons and any employer that tries to intimidate or bully their employees. Employers must act within the law and treat their employees with respect. I know they can’t bully me, and I’m filing this complaint along with several of my co-workers because I want to stand up for every employee to make sure that they don’t ever have to experience this.

It’s clear that the employers are seeing the momentum in this campaign shift over to our side. After all, why would they risk federal charges if they didn’t feel their billions in profits and the unfair two-tier contract were being threatened by our authorization vote? Bullies like Albertsons don’t fight fair, because they know they have to cheat to win.

By staying united and standing up to the employers, we already have them on the run. We’ll be fighting these violations of federal labor law in court to ensure they realize the penalty of breaking the law in the weeks to come, but one thing is already clear: their desperate actions prove that grocery workers are winning the battle to get respect.

The court case will take a long time.  The workers need your help now.

Help Billy win this fight.

  1. Sign the petition and add your voice to support and demand respect for grocery workers.

  2. Email the corporations.

  3. So. Cal grocery workers will be tabling at Ralphs this week.  Find locations and stop by to show your support.

  4. Find a worker-friendly store.

  5. Find out more at RespectWorkers.com.  There are a number of videos, a new feature called “truth of the day” and lots of great information.
Diaries & Misc.

Recording the Will of the People

2 Comments

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

Dan Walters thinks that there is hypocrisy in the push to ensure that our votes are counted accurately and the simultaneous support for the Employee Free Choice Act.  It is about Democracy he says, and transparent election processes.

He doesn’t actually have the guts to go far enough to say that he trusts black box voting.  Instead, he tries to undercut Bowen and Feintein by saying it is just all to confusing to sort out.  In the end, this really comes down to trust.  The components of the machine matter less than how the voters perceive the security and accuracy of the voting method.  We need to fix our voting systems because people do not trust them.  There may be a extremely secure, open-source, touchscreen that enables all people to vote privately, but if the voters do not believe that their vote will count, then something needs to change.

The current system for choosing to form a union is completely broken, with severe consequences for millions of American workers.  Every 23 minutes a worker is either fired or discriminated against for supporting a union.  Employers routinely force their workers to be subjected to propaganda and threats.  There are no meaningful penalties for breaking the current law.  Walters focuses on the check card provisions of the legislation.

There is, however, an anomaly evident in the drumbeat for safeguarding the sanctity of the secret ballot. Most of it is coming from Democrats such as Bowen and Feinstein — reflecting, one assumes, the angst and anger within their party over what happened in 2000. But the Democratic majorities in both Congress and the California Legislature are simultaneously pushing the notion that secret ballots should be eliminated in union representation elections.

The unions have been losing many of those elections, so they want to do away with them and substitute a “card-check” system under which an employer would be required to recognize and bargain with a union that had gathered signed cards from a majority of the affected workers.

Unions contend that with elections, employers have too much ability to influence workers. If so, however, the remedy should be to improve the voting procedures of the National Labor Relations Board, because the card-check system would open the door to coercion by union organizers. They would know which employees were and were not supportive of the union.

Walter’s is correct, the voting procedures of the NLRB are seriously broken and I contend they are broken beyond repair.  Take a look at what actually goes on.  This is fromPaulVA over at the AFL-CIO blog:

Gordon Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon who has studied how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) union representation election process really works, told the staff members the process

resembles what happens in rogue regimes abroad rather than anything we call American.

Even though the process ends in a secret ballot, it is not fair, Lafer told a briefing for Capitol Hill staff members Friday. He compared what happens in union representation elections to the standards the United States sets for what is “free and fair” in foreign elections and says “every aspect of the NLRB process violates U.S. standards of free and fair.”

In a report for ARAW, Lafer compares U.S. standards for foreign and domestic elections with the union representation election:

  • Democratic Election Standard: Each side should have equal access to the media so that competing viewpoints can create an informed electorate.

  • Union Representation Election: Employees are restricted from openly handing out information. Employers have monopoly control of media in the workplace. Employers can distribute anti-union literature anywhere anytime, while pro-union workers can only post literature in the break area during break time.

  • Democratic Election Standard: The right should be freedom of speech that allows broad debate of public issues.

  • Union Representation Election: Employers are allowed to enforce a total ban on employees discussing a proposed union outside the break room. Yet employers can have unrestricted access to employees, including mandatory staff meetings and one-on-one meetings with supervisors.

  • Democratic Election Standard: Both sides should have equal access to contact and inform voters.

  • Union Representation Election: Although pro-union workers can contact workers outside the workplace, they cannot have address information for employees until they can document that 30 percent of the workforce wants a union.

  • Democratic Election Standard: No side should coerce or have undue influence on who a voter supports.

  • Union Representation Election: Employees are not protected against economic coercion. Employers and suWalters on Elections – Google Docs & Spreadsheetspervisors exercise considerable leverage over workers. Generally, they stop short of outright threats or bribes (which are illegal) and instead, are allowed to issue thinly veiled threats like “choosing a union may lead the company to lose business or make cutbacks.”

  • Democratic Election Standard: Once the voters make a decision, it should take effect quickly through a system of regular elections and fixed terms of office.

  • Union Representation Election: If workers vote for a union, they can face infinite delays before their will is carried out. Often the delays, which sometimes take years because employers take full advantage of permissive election guidelines and drag out appeals for years. Also, the laws require that the workplace operate as if the workers did not choose a union during the appeals.

  • Democratic Election Standard: Campaign finances should be regulated to allow a competitive and level playing field.

  • Union Representation Election: The law sets no limit on the amount an employer can spend to fight workers’ choice to form a union. Also, the employer has access to resources the uniondoesn ‘t such as on-the-clock meetings, use of company property and equipment and converting supervisors to anti-union campaign staff.

Contrary to Walters assertions about coercion, academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the NLRB election process.  They also report less pressure from management.  It is already illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union authorization card.  Anyone who breaks that law will be subject to penalties under the Employee Free Choice Act.

While the check-card process is at the heart of the Employee Free Choice Act, the increased penalties for breaking the law that will bring about enormous change and level the playing field.  It is unacceptable for either employers or union supporters to coerce employees.  Any violation of that law should be punished.  Right now the process takes way too long and renders insufficient penalties to serve as a real deterrent.  The EFCA would change all of that

Majority sign-up represents the will of the majority which votes by signing cards.  Reforming the NLRB does not address the unique concept of an election where the employer holds veto power over the will of employees by exposing them to a second election.  Additionally, the Employee Free Choice Act would not take away the right of workers to have an election.  It would merely add check-cards as another way for employees to voice their desire to form a union.

It is well past time to have fair and trusted elections in this country.  Now, it appears we have people in office who will work to ensure that happens.  We should expect nothing less.