I just knew this was coming. I knew it was coming. Get ready for another strike at a Vons, Ralphs, and/or Albertsons near you. (From LA Times)

Southern California grocery workers voted Sunday to give their union the right to strike if negotiations for a new contract fail. Union officials said the measure passed by an overwhelming 95%.

Contract talks between the United Food and Commercial Workers [UFCW] union and Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons over a new agreement for 65,000 workers from Bakersfield to the Mexican border broke off late last week. Sunday’s strike authorization vote was set by the union after the grocery chains failed to meet a Thursday deadline for a formal offer.

So what exactly happened? Why couldn’t an agreement be reached? What’s at stake for the grocery companies? What’s at stake for the grocery workers? And what happens next? Follow me after the flip for more…

So why couldn’t an agreement be reached? The OC Register explains:

At issue are health benefits, pensions and adding a lower payment scale for employees, who say they haven’t had a raise since 2002. A representative for the grocery companies called the vote premature and said store officials remain hopeful that they will get back to the bargaining table this week.

Oh, so the vote is “premature”? And the stores are hopeful that they will “get back to the bargaining table this week”? Well, why couldn’t they just work out a fair agreement from the bargaining table to start with? They could avoided all the risk of another strike with a fair agreement.

Take a look at this fact sheet from the UFCW. Profits for the stores have been better than ever, yet the corporate executives at Ralphs (Kroger), Vons (Safeway), and Albertsons (Supervalu) refuse to share any with the workers. The store executives always whine about Wal-Mart and Costco eating away at their market share, yet Wal-Mart and Costco COMBINED only control about 8% of the Southern California market. THAT’S ACTUALLY LESS MARKET SHARE THAN WAL-MART AND COSTCO HAD IN 2003, when the grocery companies were claiming that they need to cut workers’ wages and benefits in order to remain competitive against Wal-Mart and Costco. Yet even though all the workers worked so hard after returning from the 2003-2004 strike to rehabilitate the supermarkets, the grocery companies not only refuse to give them any thanks, but they won’t even give the workers the fair wages and benefits that they should have been given in 2003.

No wonder why workers were so ready yesterday to approve the strike. (From OC Register)

Union workers, still feeling the effects of a five-month strike ending in March 2004, said they are willing to take the risk of a walkout. Debbie Johnson, a mother of four who has worked at the Vons in Huntington Beach for 27 years, said she’s ready to rely on her husband’s paycheck for a while.

“I’m tired of playing the game that goes back and forth,” Johnson said. “There are other jobs out there. I could go anywhere and not have to do all the (work) I do now.” […]

Eddie Davalos, a dairy department supervisor at an Albertsons in La Habra, said he decided to stay at the company for 15 years because of the good benefits. Under the proposed contract, the co-payments for his three kids’ medical visits would go from $25 to $50, he said.

“I feel like it’s a slap in the face,” Davalos said.

Yep, it really is a slap in the face. These workers are struggling just to keep their heads above water. They’re just trying to put some food on their family tables after helping us bring food to our family tables. However, the grocery company CEOs are enjoying record compensation as the companies are reaping in healthy profits. So why can’t the workers just get some decent wages and benefits?

Something needs to be done.

So what can we do about this? What can we do to support the workers as they demand a fair contract? Well, we can start by signing the pledge to take your business elsewhere as the companies are forcing this strike to happen. And since we’re not shopping at the stores that aren’t respecting their workers, we might as well use the store finder to locate nearby grocery stores that are respecting their workers. We can also share these flyers with our friends, family, and neighbors, letting them know what’s at stake for the workers.

Whether or not we ourselves are part of the UFCW, these workers are our friends. They are our brothers and sisters in solidarity. Let’s show them some.

From the Academic Student Employee union (UAW #2865) at UC Davis:

As an important step toward winning our bargaining demands for improved workload protections, UAW 2865 members around the state are having a grade-in/tutor-in during finals week.  Our action will demonstrate to the University of California just how much work it takes to ensure the students at UC Davis get the quality education they deserve. Come out and show your support for increased workload protections while you get your work done.

WHO: All TAs, Graders, Tutors and Grad Students
WHAT: Grade-in/Tutor-In
WHERE: Memorial Union Patio
WHEN: Tuesday, June 12, 11:30am – 1pm

As contract negotiations have progressed, the administration has stalled having any serious discussion over workload.  As enrollment has steadily increased statewide, class and section sizes have ballooned, creating more work for Teaching Assistants, Tutors, and Readers. When we are overworked we cannot provide quality education to our students and we are slower to advance in our academic careers.  We are faced with pressure to speed up our work and do more with less. Employees want increased workload protections that would give the union a say over class and section size.

The Union has made several proposals to proactively prevent overworking that have not been addressed by the administration.  In addition to negotiating with UC administration over class and section sizes, TAs Tutors, and Readers also want to win the right to arbitrate over workload.  With the current contract, academic student employees cannot take workload grievances to arbitration, which means any workload disputes are settled by an internal university board rather than a neutral arbitrator.

We need to show the administration that the issue of workload is important to us and remind them how crucial our work is for the quality of education at the University of California.  Bring any exams or papers you need to grade or hold outdoor office hours/tutoring sessions and help send a strong message to the administration that they must address this key issue.

Grading makes finals week a crazy time of year for grad students who tutor or TA undergraduate classes, but most of the time the time that we put into that work is invisible to both the undergraduate students and the univeristy administration. The larger the section and the greater the workload, the harder it gets to do that grading to the best of one’s ability, and everyone on campus ends up losing as a result. As a way of raising the visibility of this critical work, and demonstrating to the administration that we are not just going to be pushovers in the rest of our contract negotiations this summer and into next fall quarter, please show up and get some grading done out on the MU patio. Similar events will be scheduled at the other quarter-based UC campuses, please feel free to post info in the comments.

This looks like a lot of fun, and a creative sort of protest to boot. See you all there!

originally at surf putah

—–

UPDATE The grade-in/tutor-in had a pretty good turnout for a finals week at noon (several TAs were busy proctoring final exams, and couldn’t make it), between 20 and 30 from my count, grading together on tables in the shade. The Enterprise had a reporter and photographer there interviewing some of the workers, and a fair number of curious undergraduates stopped by and wanted to know what was going on. All in all, a good way to get some visibility, and it beat grading in the office!

Here are a couple of pictures of the grade-in:

Sign 1: “Our Working Conditions =Student Learning Conditions”

Sign 2: “Education Without Exploitation”

A Teaching Moment:

ASE Graders At Work:

The runoff for school board seats in two districts takes place today.  If Antonio Villaraigosa’s two candidates win, he will have a majority on the LAUSD school board sympathetic to his agenda.  In District 7 (Watts, Harbor area), an open seat, Antonio’s candidate Richard Vladovic has outspent retired principal Neal Kleiner by 13 to 1, as the teacher’s union has stayed neutral.  The real race is in District 3 (South and West SF Valley), between incumbent Jon Lauritzen and Villaraigosa candidate Tamar Galatzan.  Nearly FOUR MILLION DOLLARS has been spent in this race.  Last time turnout was under 10%.  Today it might come down, literally, to how many teachers show up to vote.  It’s sad, because this vote will have major implications for the future of LA’s schools, as well as the future of the man who is the favorite to be California’s next governor.

Two weeks may have passed between the Democratic Convention and today, but that hasn’t stopped us from speculating over what actually happened during that weekend. During these two weeks, everyone seems to have developed a theory on who knew what ahead of time, who was conspiring to silence the progressives, and who was really behind the mysterious quorum call. Two weeks have passed since then, and I’d like to do my part to end all the speculation NOW.

Last Thursday, I hopped on over to OC Drinking Liberally. John Hanna, Co-chair of the Resolutions Committee, also happened to be there. Pretty soon, hekebolos showed up, and we all went to the back room of Memphis to discuss what really happened at the convention. Later on, we also talked about what we can do better next time, but I’ll talk about that part of the discussion another time.

Right now, I’m inviting you to follow me after the flip to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE RESOLUTIONS. I have been collecting information from a few brave individuals for quite some time now, and my meeting with John Hanna on Thursday put an end to my own speculation on all these rumors. So why not join me after the flip, so that you can also toss the speculation and just find out what happened?

OK, let’s start out by going through all those wild rumors. Here’s what true, and here’s what’s just wild.

– Rumor #1: There was a deal made between PDA and party leadership on impeachment- TRUE! Yes, PDA did meet with party leaders before and during the convention. A friend of mine involved in PDA told me that the party leaders knew about PDA’s plans for San Diego, and they did not want the convention to turn ugly. PDA agreed to soften the language on impeachment of Bush, the leaders agreed to tough language on Cheney, and everyone agreed to fold all the resolutions into one.

– Rumor #2: There was a grand conspiracy among the party leaders to “appoint” a delegate to make the quorum call- FALSE (well, kinda sorta)! Neither John Hanna NOR Art Torres had any advance knowledge of the quorum call. This makes sense, as Torres really did look bewildered and genuinely frustrated at the podium. However, other folks that I spoke with earlier did drop me a hint. They’ve called Bob Mulholland a “street fighter”, and they have suggested that he wouldn’t hesitate to pull a stunt like this. Hmmm, so does this mean we have a culprit?

– Rumor #3: John Hanna conspired to silence the true antiwar voices who wanted to “stengthen” Don Perata’s Out of Iraq Resolution- FALSE! He wanted the Perata Resolution clean, but he didn’t block the amendments by Karen Bernall (deauthorize the war) and the Hull-Richters (defund the war). John Hanna wanted to ensure that the Perata’s Out of Iraq Resolution ended up looking like what Perata wants to put on the ballot next February. However Garry Shay, of the Rules Committee, urged him to come up with a way to allow Bernall and the others (even the Hull-Richters) to be heard. So they worked out a deal. The rules would be temporarily suspended, so that the amendments could be split off from the Perata measure, and they could become their own resolutions. All the delegates can then vote on each proposal separately, and all sides can get a fair shake. John seemed sincere when he said that he thought the perfect deal had been struck, and everyone could get what he/she wanted… Until Karen Wingard stepped in.

– Rumor #4: John Hanna conspired with AT&T and CWA to kill the net neutrality resolution- ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Unfortunately, John Hanna and the party leaders weren’t as familiar with net neutrality then as they are now. So out of good faith that Jim Gordon would work out a fair agreement with CWA and AT&T on net neutrality, the Resolutions Committee agreed to refer it to the Labor Caucus. But now, John Hanna regrets taking Jim Gordon’s word when he promised John that he’d come up with a resolution in the Labor Caucus that “the net neutrality folks will like”. John told us that he didn’t know about the CWA/AT&T deep hostility toward net neutrality. And yes, he wants our forgiveness, and he wants to make it up to us. That’s why he’s willing to give us another chance to get net neutrality passed. (And I’ll talk more about this in a future story.)

Basically, John Hanna regrets what happened with many of the resolutions. He now says that he should have just allowed Karen Bernall to do a petition drive for her own “Out of Iraq” resolution, even though her resolution had been “gutted and amended” to make way for Perata. He says that he might change the rules to allow for this next time. He has also said that we weren’t given a fair chance to clarify what was about to happen to net neutrality. And yes, this might inspire some changes in the rules as well. I know that we were all let down by what happened two weeks ago, but let’s not allow these disappointments to stop us from doing better next time.

Now we know how the internal politics are played. And now, we have a better grasp of the rules that we need to follow. So let’s follow the rules (including whatever new ones that might actually make our jobs easier), and let’s get our agenda accomplished. And now that we have made amends with the past, let’s get back to making a better future. : )

Today is May 1st, otherwise known as May Day, known both for the Pagan spring festival involving flowery doorbell ditching and dancing merrily around ribboned maypoles, and the International Labor Day that was spawned by America’s own Haymarket Riot which began as a strike in support of the right to an 8 hour workday (and which was subsequently crushed by Chicago police) on May 1, 1886.

Last year, the widespread Immigrant Rights marches and boycotts on May 1st added another layer to this holiday palimpsest, and they’re going for a repeat this year. The agenda of the marchers is based around ten points:

1) No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.

2) No to militarization of the border.

3) No to the immigrant detention and deportation.

4) No to the guest worker program.

5) No to employer sanction and “no match” letters.

6) Yes to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

7) Yes to speedy family reunification.

8) Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.

9) Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.

10) Yes to the education and LGBT immigrant legislation.

Students will be walking out of classes and marching at high schools and colleges across the country. Duke1676 over at Migra Matters has a list of all national May 1st events. The Yolo County contingent will be rallying on UCD campus, at the MU flagpole. From Davis wiki’s May 1st page:

UC Davis Campus, Memorial Union Patio
11-12:00 – Rally at MU patio with musicians and performers
11:30 am – Solidarity Walk Out. Congregate at MU patio
12:00 pm – March

Elsewhere in the Central Valley, there are events in Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, and Chico, and probably more that I’m missing. To show solidarity, wear white or green (why those colors? beats me).

Predictably, the UCD Campus Republicans will be up to their usual xenophobic race baiting by playing “INS and illegals capture the flag” on the quad at the same time.

And if all this wasn’t enough excitement in town, the Department of Homeland Security is holding a town hall meeting on UC Davis campus, in Freeborn Hall from 10am to 2pm, about provisions in the Real ID Act. If that’s not convenient for you, I suspect that’s intentional; the announcement just went out last week. From the announcement in the Enterprise (whose website has been down all day, or I’d link it), this is the only  public hearing in the country on this provision. Why they held it in Davis is a mystery to me, but go out there and give ’em a peice of your mind. If you can’t get there in person, it will be streaming video at this site. The Washington State and Montana legislatures have opted out of the ID program, citing serious privacy issues. The ACLU has a whole list of good questions to ask:

1. What privacy protections, if any, are in place for all the documentation the DMV has to scan to verify our identity in order to receive a REAL ID card?

2. Who is going to pay for REAL ID implementation? How much do you think the citizen’s of this country are going to have to pay to get a REAL ID?

3. What will you do to help protect the identity of victims of domestic violence who do not want to use their street address on their Identification card for safety purposes?

4. In the Regulations that were published on REAL ID, it states that “third-parties” will be in charge of scanning driver’s data for verification purposes.  Why have you not articulated the privacy protections needed to make sure the scanned data is safe from identity thieves within the third parties?

5. Will wait times at DMV’s decrease with the implementation of REAL ID?  Will I be able to walk out of the DMV with my REAL ID on the same day I apply for it and if not, how do you suppose I get to work?  Is the federal government going to reimburse me for cab rides to work and back?

6. Why is DHS not requiring the data on REAL ID to be encrypted so that Americans are protected from our data being stolen and sold to the private sector?

7. Isn’t the likelihood of identity theft exponentially increased when DMV employees will have access to the records of all REAL ID holders throughout the country?

8. The regulations state that securing private databases must be part of state physical security measures, so why hasn’t the DHS articulated specifically how states will secure this information?

9. How will state laws be affected by REAL ID implementation? For example in CA, DMV’s are supposed to destroy all records no longer needed to issue a license.  Will the state of California have to amend this important law in order to be in compliance with REAL ID?

10.  Is there an appeals process if there are mistakes made on my REAL ID? 

11. How is requiring my full legal name on all the documents I need to get a REAL ID going to prevent another 9/11?  What if my birth certificate has my middle name, but my passport, marriage license, and social security card has only my middle initial; will I be denied a REAL ID?

12. Why is the DHS moving forward with requiring verification of all these different forms of data when there are no reliable verification databases in place now?

13. How does storing all the scanned data forever help fight terrorism? (DMV’s will be required to scan and save all birth certificates, naturalization papers, Social Security cards and other forms of ID in order to issue a driver’s license.)

14. How will REAL ID respect on people’s 1st Amendment rights when it requires everyone getting a REAL ID to take a picture?  There are many religions that are practiced by Americans and Legal Permanent residents that prohibit their picture being taken.

15. If someone doesn’t have a REAL ID and must access a courthouse, how will that person be able to get in and exercise his or her due process rights?

16. Montana and Washington states have opted out of REAL ID.  Doesn’t this cast doubt on the entire REAL ID law?  Why should California pay so much money for a program whose future is in serious doubt?

To which I would add, after all the abuses of power using National Security excuses as carte blanche to rifle through the American people’s private records, why the hell should we trust you now with a national ID card and a unified federal database of our information? Or as Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer put it:

“No. Nope. No way and hell no.”

originally at surf putah

(Crap… What’s going on in our institutions of higher learning? – promoted by atdleft)

In their ever-continuing quest to turn California’s public higher education into a de facto private institution, the University of California, not content with jacking up graduate student tuition yet another 10% (and nearly doubling fees since 2002), is now trying to stiff TAs, readers, and research assistants in the latest series of contract negotiations by freezing fee remissions and health insurance premiums:

The UAW Local 2865 bargaining team met Monday, April 16 with university representatives to discuss changes the university would like to make to our contract.

Unfortunately, the bargaining team was alarmed by the uncooperative, antiunion tactics of the university. The university is proposing to cut a number of critical benefits and roll back several groundbreaking union victories. Not only would these cuts and rollbacks have a negative financial impact on all our members, they would also undermine the ability of UC to continue to be competitive, encourage diversity, and attract the best and brightest.

FEE REMISSIONS
At the same time that we are proposing to expand the types of fees covered and who is eligible to receive remissions, the university is proposing to end full fee remissions for graduate-student employees, proposing instead to cap remissions. What this would mean is that whenever fees increase-which is the unfortunate trend-we would end up paying that increase out-of-pocket.

HEALTH INSURANCE
Additionally, under the current contract, many of us have our health insurance premium fully covered. Again, while we are proposing to expand the types of fees covered and who is eligible to receive remissions, the university is proposing to cap our health insurance premium remissions at a fixed dollar amount, thus transferring the rising cost of health care onto us. Given that the health plans at many campuses are already inadequate and steadily deteriorating, this proposal is unacceptable.

The university also made several proposals which would prevent teaching assistants, readers, and tutors from being informed of their rights, and which would limit our rights to express solidarity with workers in other campus unions.

The university is proposing to take us in the wrong direction. This is unacceptable. As bargaining continues, we will keep you informed of developments at the bargaining table and opportunities to participate in winning a great fourth contract.  If you have questions or would like to get more involved, please reply to this message or contact your campus office.

In solidarity,

UAW Local 2865 Bargaining Committee

This is not the first time that the university has tried this, but it is pretty bad news that they’re looking to freeze remissions while the fees continue skyrocketing this way. For most UC graduate students, fee remission and health care coverage when working for the university are the only way to make ends meet, and often their value is far greater than the actual pay that the work provides.

I have heard many fellow grad students wonder  aloud what the point of paying those union fees is. Here is my answer: the only reason why we even have health insurance and fee remissions when we work is that grad students organized and were willing to strike to make the point that the University of California does not run without our labor. The Regents do not just pay us out of the goodness of their hearts, and they will not continue to respect what gains we have negotiated in perpetuity, out of the goodness of their hearts. Only by organizing and demonstrating the value of the work that we do by being willing to deny it if need be, will we get the kind of pay and benefits that allow us to scratch out a public graduate school education.

Academic student employees are not asking for an unreasonable amount of pay or benefits here. The University of California has been utterly unreasonable in raising fees over the past several years, far beyond the rate of inflation and at the same time that executive and administration salaries and compensation have skyrocketed. This latest attempt to further wring more money out of already-indebted graduate students is unconscionable. I would hope that our elected representatives would take notice, in particular Davis’ own Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, and Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who is a Regent for the UC system (and whose son, John Garamendi, Jr., is an administrator at UC Merced, and reportedly considering challenging Lois Wolk for the 5th State Senate Seat). There are a lot of academic employees here in Yolo County, and we do vote.

If you are a grad student and interested in getting involved on any of the UC campuses, bookmark the Academic Student Employee union page. If this negotiation continues in this direction, we’re going to need as many students working together as we can to turn things around.

originally at surf putah

“It’s too early to decide… I dare not express any opinions until after I see the environmental impact report on that project.”

(From OC Register)

So what is newly appointed Garden Grove City Council Member Steven Jones talking about, and why is everyone paying such close attention to it? And why is everyone looking at Garden Grove as if what happens in this town may change everything for working people in Orange County? Follow me after the flip for the answers, and much, much more…

So what’s the big news? Wal-Mart’s coming to town… And they want it “Super-sized”!
Here’s what was said in The LA Times about Wal-Mart’s proposed Supercenter back in December (via Topix):

While other Southern California cities pass laws to prevent Wal-Mart Supercenters from opening, Garden Grove appears to be all but holding open the front door for the big-box retailer.

Pressed for money and looking for a way to revive a tired commercial district in central Garden Grove, city officials see a Supercenter as a potential savior. ‘This is going to enhance the quality of life of our residents, and it will be an anchor to a blighted area,’ said Councilwoman Janet Nguyen. Twenty-one Supercenters, which combine a regular Wal-Mart with a discount supermarket, have opened in the state, most in north Los Angeles County and outlying areas of the Inland Empire.

However, this proposed project would mean the very first Wal-Mart Supercenter in Orange County. Now, many local officials and business people are quite excited about this. They are excited about the prospect of increased tax revenue from Wal-Mart. They are thrilled about all the new customers flooding into Garden Grove to do business. Basically, they can hardly wait to see Wal-Mart revive this under served and largely ignored part of town.

But wait! Is everyone all that excited about the new Wal-Mart Supercenter? And does everyone really think that Wal-Mart will be a great boon for Garden Grove?

Wal-Mart critics argue that the retail giant would depress wages, especially compared to the pay of unionized workers at grocery stores that would be the Supercenter’s main competition. Ismail Majoo, who owns a discount variety store in neighboring Santa Ana, is a member of the Main Street Coalition, a small group of clergy, labor leaders and small-business owners concerned about a Supercenter’s impact on small business. ‘The Supercenter will wipe out the small-business owner because of the store’s aggressive pricing policy,’ Majoo said. ‘I’m not really worried about my business, but I do worry about the whole neighborhood.’ The Rev. Wilfredo Benitez, rector at St. Anselm Episcopal Church in Garden Grove, has been the religious leader most outspoken against the Supercenter, attending two anti Wal-Mart rallies and raising the issue three times in recent Sunday sermons. ‘It’s a bit frustrating,’ Benitez said. ‘It’s territory a lot of pastors won’t go into on Sunday morning. But we all have the moral imperative to stand on the side of the poor and those who would be exploited.’ ‘We don’t want that Supercenter here,’ he added.

Actually now that they mention it, Wal-Mart does have a nasty record of hurting the community that it comes into. They’ve been known to rely upon taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to artificially “lower prices” and cut down their honest playing competition. They don’t exactly have the best record of keeping bigotry and discrimination out of their business. Well basically, Wal-Mart isn’t the type of company that cares about the diverse, working-class community in Garden Grove.

So what can you do about it now? Well, why not sign the Courage Campaign’s petition asking Garden Grove City Council Member Steven Jones not to allow Wal-Mart to hurt the small businesses in Central Orange County. He may be the key deciding vote in determining whether or not Wal-Mart is allowed to come in and change the entire dynamics of doing business in Garden Grove and Central Orange County. The future of our small businesses and our working-class communities is on the line, so we need to let Council Member Jones know how we really feel about what may potentially be a VERY RAW DEAL for the people of Garden Grove.

(Wow! If only labor and environment can work together in more places more often! – promoted by atdleft)

During the Seattle WTO protests, in 1999, the phrase “Turtles & Teamsters, Together At Last” (and variations) jumped from protest sign to guiding philosophy. It symbolically described hundreds of thousands Sierra Club activists (who dressed as sea turtles) and union members who marched to demand that human and environmental concerns be included in discussions of global Free Trade regimes.

“Turtles & Teamsters” also put a name to the increasingly common alliances between environmentalists and labor unions, which were no longer willing to accept that protecting the environment and jobs were mutually exclusive conditions. That potent alliance has formed around the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and offers both hope and dangers.

In August 2006, Teamster reps at YearlyKos told me the Brotherhood “basically got kicked out of the ports when the trucking industry was deregulated and hiring owner-operators became the standard MO for the industry. The Teamsters ominously said that they were already laying to ground work to reorganize drayage drivers and ‘we’ll be back’.” (LBP 10/19/2006) The following October, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have granted collective bargaining rights to drayage drivers, for the second year in a row. (ibid)

The March 29th edition of the Daily Breeze showed a mob of owner-operators at a Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports rally. Careful observers noted that each of the enthusiastic port truck drivers wore a green fleece with a Teamsters‘ emblem on the breast, but that not one of them was legally allowed to join the union.

It’s the irony in that picture that forshadows an explosive political conflict in the coming months and years. The CCSP has proposed that the Ports limit access to pre-approved companies and their employees, a local-level policy change which would make an end-run around Sacramento. The change would radically alter the labor relations by ending the ‘independent contracting’, provide a mechanism for enforcing vehicle efficiency upgrades and shore up TSA security initiatives. It would also inevitably (and substantially) raise the cost of moving freight, which means the world’s largest retailers and manufacturers will not be gentle.

In the short term, shippers will probably be able to keep the Ports from implementing the CCSP’s proposals, but it comes with a risk. Teamsters are famous for their militancy and port truckers have been known to stage their own independent direct actions (i.e. shutting down the I-5 with a single abandoned truck). This is the beginning of an election cycle which many expect to obliterate the Republican Party, and an energized Democratic Party is looking at every conceivable cause to grow and activate its base. Allowing tens of thousands of immigrant truck drivers to unionize will be an easy issue support for Democratic insurgents, and an easy campaign promise to deliver once in power.

Toeing the line and refusing to negotiate has been a reliable breakwater for businesses and shippers keep down costs. Logistics industry insiders, however, predict a ‘Perfect Storm’ in 2008 and truckers in Long Beach may contribute to the tsunami which threatens to wipe out the deregulated transportation industry of the last 20 years.

For your reading pleasure:
* For cleaner US ports, cut truck fumes first? by the Christian Science Monitor
* Cleaning Up Trucks at California Ports Clears the Air and Improves Truckers’ Lives by the California Progress Report
* Teamsters: California ports exploit truckers by eTrucker.com

—

Originally published as Teamsters & Turtles Target POLA/POLB, Wages & Pollution on Long Beach Politics.