-
News and Updates
July 27, 2011
Indiana UFCW Members Gear Up to Fight Right-to-Work
The Indiana Legislature is once again considering a controversial right-to-work bill. In a hearing held today, a joint Senate-House Committee examined the right-to-work bill and UFCW members from across Indiana were there to tell their elected officials that the bill is bad for Hoosiers and bad for working families.
“Don’t sell Hoosiers short. Let’s invest in education and infrastructure to create new jobs,” said Local 700 member and grocery worker Ashley McDonald of Brazil, Indiana. “Lowering our standard of living with a right-to-work law won’t bring business or jobs to Indiana.”
Members from UFCW Locals 700, 75, 881, and 227 and the RWDSU attended the hearing, then took part in a training on lobbying their legislators and talking to their neighbors about right-to-work.
July 27, 2011
Indiana lawmakers hold hearing on right-to-work
A joint Senate-House committee was holding a hearing this morning on right-to-work, the controversial issue that helped trigger a five-week walk-out by House Democrats in the last legislative session.
The hearing is the first of what is expected to be at least two by the summer study committee, and a precursor to legislation expected to be heard in the next session, which begins in January.
Gov. Mitch Daniels had opposed the legislature getting into the issue last session, saying it had not been debated by voters in the 2010 election.
But the first witness at today’s hearing in the Senate chambers may show that he’s open to having the issue voted upon in the 2012 session: Mitch Roob, his secretary of commerce.
Roob, who also is head of the Indiana Economic Development Corp., said Indiana does “lose opportunities” because it does not have this provision, which blocks companies and unions from negotiating contracts that require non-members to pay fees for representation.
States that do not have this provision in law, he said, are perceived as being less friendly to business, “rightly or wrongly.” If the state adopts this law, he said, it will give Indiana another tool in its arsenal as it competes with other states for businesses. And he noted that the fastest growing states are those with “right to work” laws on their books.
Labor unions, who call this issue the “right to work for less,” also will testify today, arguing that states with this law have lower incomes.
Joe Chorpenning, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 700, noted that Nevada is a right-to-work state but “has the highest unemployment in the country.”
July 20, 2011
Joint Statement by AFL-CIO Pres. Richard Trumka and UFCW Pres. Joseph Hansen on White House Walmart Event
We are honored that President Obama asked us to serve on his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, charged primarily with rebuilding America’s middle class by creating good jobs. America’s working families urgently need leadership that will get Americans back to good jobs, paying taxes, spending in their communities and saving for retirement. The jobs crisis facing our nation threatens our long-term economic security, the strength and cohesion of our families and communities and our ability to compete successfully in the global economy.Today’s White House event, which highlights Walmart’s expansion in urban areas, undercuts the message of the need for good jobs that can rebuild our middle class.When Walmart opens in a community, it regularly displaces existing jobs with poverty-level jobs. Tens of thousands of Walmart associates qualify for and utilize food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid. In this time of budgetary stress, Walmart’s business model is subsidized on the backs of American taxpayers.There is no economic justification for our nation’s largest private employer to pay wages so low that any of its employees qualify for public assistance. And there is no justification for highlighting a private employer with a business model based on suppressing wages for its 1.4 million hourly workers.We call on the Administration to remain focused on the importance of a strong middle class and protecting and creating good jobs on the scale that is needed. We ask the Administration to stand with communities that have called on Walmart to strengthen the communities it enters rather than drive standards and wages down.
July 20, 2011
A STATEMENT FROM JOE HANSEN, UFCW INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT CHALLENGING WHITE HOUSE:
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – The following statement was issued today by Joe Hansen, International President of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), in advance of an event in the White House in which First Lady Michelle Obama recognizes retailers who are willing to expand their business into under served areas. Walmart is among the attendees.
“The First Lady’s commitment to addressing childhood obesity in the U.S. is laudable and the UFCW commends her for her enthusiasm for such a worthy endeavor. But with income disparity between the rich and the poor at more extreme levels than during the Great Depression, Walmart must be held accountable for its track record of lower standards for millions of retail workers.
“Walmart is more responsible than any other private employer in our country for creating poverty-level jobs that leave workers unable to purchase healthy food or provide a good life for their families.
“I met Walmart Associate Girshreila Green last month who told me that she got her job at the inner-city Crenshaw Walmart in Los Angeles through the welfare-to-work program. And after three years of work and an excellent employment record at what she calls the ‘ghetto Walmart,’ Girshreila still has a welfare card in her pocket, right along with her Walmart I.D. and Walmart discount card.
“There is no economic justification that our nation’s largest private employer should pay wages so low that any of its employees qualify for public assistance. But the fact that tens of thousands of Walmart associates qualify and utilize food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid is reason enough that the White House should join with our union and tell Walmart – enough is enough.
“Our national economic crisis is made worse by companies like Walmart suppressing wages for its 1.4 million hourly workers who live and work in communities across the country.
“Walmart claims it wants to open stores in urban markets like Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and other major cities. Workers, community leaders and consumers in each of those cities have called on Walmart to commit to providing good jobs that pay wages high enough to improve the lives of workers in those cities. The fact is, when Walmart opens in a community, it replaces what were good jobs with poverty-level ones. Walmart continues to drive the cycle of poverty by lowering wage rates and preventing associates from lifting themselves out of economic insecurity.
“Millions of grocery workers serve communities of every income level and hold good jobs with fair wages, affordable health care, and a voice on the job. The White House should laud employers who are fueling economic recovery by creating good jobs where workers can afford to take care of their families and buy the healthy food their children deserve.”
-30-
Videos of Girshreila Green speaking out about her experience as a Walmart associate can be found at: http://vimeo.com/26640913 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTEuBHSvfFg
Making Change at Walmart seeks to promote the American values of equality, dignity and respect in the workplace. The campaign is making change by working directly with Walmart Associates to claim the respect on the job they deserve, holding Walmart corporate managers accountable to hourly employees and the public for their practices and joining with community leaders in major cities across America to make sure that any new jobs offered by Walmart meet strong standards for healthy, growing communities.
July 19, 2011
Statement by UFCW Executive Vice President Pat O’Neill on Proposed NLRB Rule to Modernize Union Election Process
Washington, D.C. – The following remarks were delivered by UFCW Executive Vice President and Organizing Director Pat O’Neill, who testified at the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) public meeting on July 19, 2011 regarding the NLRB’s proposed rule changes to the union election process:
“American workers are struggling to make ends meet during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Workers in the grocery, retail, meatpacking and food processing industries are no exception. Union contracts offer the best opportunity for stable, middle class jobs. While the National Labor Relations Act gives workers the fundamental right to join a union and achieve the benefits of collective bargaining, the NLRB’s current rules are seriously outdated, needlessly complex, and foster frivolous litigation. The current process creates barriers to workers exercising their fundamental right to form a union. It’s time to return the process to its original intent – which is to give workers a clear path to making the choice when they want collective bargaining.
“We view the proposed election rule changes as a modest but important first step toward modernizing and streamlining an outmoded process that encourages unnecessary, time-consuming and wasteful litigation.
“The proposal to defer resolution of most voter eligibility issues until after the election, including all bargaining unit disputes affecting less than 20 percent of the unit, would make the current process more efficient and worker-friendly. Just ask the employees of Home Market Foods in Norwood, Mass., who sought representation by UFCW Local 1445. Workers petitioned for an election in a unit of all production, maintenance, shipping, receiving and housekeeping employees, including 11 quality assurance (Q.A.) technicians but excluding nine Q.A. technologists, who the technicians consider to be their supervisors. However, the company argued that none of the Q.A. workers should be in the unit – or if they were included, that the technologists were not supervisors and should vote in the election. By disputing the Q.A. workers’ status, the company delayed the election until 79 days after the petition was filed. And during this delay, management used the time to further threaten workers with job loss and plant closure if they won in the election. The workers lost the election 104-114. If the Q.A. employees’ eligibility to vote had been deferred until after the election, the election would have taken place before the employer’s scare tactics had their intended effect. In that case, the workers would have won the election by a big enough margin that their votes would not have affected the outcome.
“This is exactly why the proposed changes are needed. Workers go to work to earn a living, not to get engaged in a protracted lawyer-driven tug of war with their employer. When workers want to organize a union, they want to do it immediately.
“The proposed rule changes will not interfere with employers’ free speech rights. Workers know their employers’ views on unionization. And if workers are unclear about their employers’ position, it doesn’t take long for them to find out. Nor will this rule change lead to “ambush” elections, as claimed by employer-funded lawyers. Almost all union election campaigns are well underway and well known to employers long before an election petition is filed. In virtually all instances, employers have ample time to communicate with their workers.
“This fact is supported by a recent study by Professors Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell and Dorian Warren of Columbia, both of whom will address this panel later today. Their research shows that “Thirty-one percent of serious [unfair labor practice] violations occurred 30 days before the petition was filed and 47 percent of all serious allegations occurred before the petition was filed.” The data support their conclusion that employer “opposition starts long before the filing of the petition.” UFCW organizers have long known and experienced this first-hand many times.
“The UFCW is optimistic that the proposed rule changes will begin to restore the NLRB election process back to what it was intended to do – give workers a clear process to organizing a union. We are, however, concerned about the possible elimination of the blocking charge policy. Strong employer opposition to union organizing campaigns is the rule rather than the exception. Workers and their unions, when faced with serious employer unfair labor practices during the critical period, may need temporary postponement of the election to try to counter the employer’s illegal conduct. The blocking charge policy is needed to help attempt to prevent that from happening.
“The UFCW will make a more detailed response to the Board’s Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the written comments it plans to file. Again, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the proposed rule.”
July 12, 2011
Wisconsin Voters Head to Polls Today for Recall Primaries
Wisconsin voters are voting for something important today. They’re voting in primaries for Democratic opponents to face the the six Republican Senators who helped ram through Governor Scott Walker’s bill to eliminate collective bargaining back in March. But it just wouldn’t be a Wisconsin election without more dirty tricks from Republicans, right? So of course, working voters are facing a particularly dirty trick from Walker’s allies today.
Today, Wisconsin working family voters are taking another step to take back their government from Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) radical, anti-family, anti-community, pro-Koch Brothers agenda. And they have to defeat a Republican dirty trick to do it…these primary elections have been marred by Walker supporters who recruited fake candidates to run in the elections in an attempt to sow confusion among voters. The winners of today’s elections will face the six Republicans in an Aug. 9 general election.
But workers are on the case. Union members, including many UFCW members, are out in force to knock on doors and educate folks about the primary candidates today. The vote today is an important first step in recalling the Walker Six. A gain of even just three seats would break Walker’s stranglehold on the Senate. So all eyes are on Wisconsin today–and if you’re a Wisconsinite, don’t forget to vote!
June 30, 2011
1,298,301 Ohioans Want to Repeal SB5
On June 29, 2011, UFCW members from all around Ohio joined a crowd of thousands in downtown Columbus to deliver 1,298,301 signatures to repeal SB 5 to the Ohio Secretary of State office. We Are Ohio volunteers collected more signatures than any other petition drive in Ohio history. The citizen-driven petition drive exceeded the 3% threshold and collected at least 6%, or double the amount required by Ohio law in all 88 counties.
UFCW Local 75 members stand with a firefighter supporter as they march to turn in over a million signatures for the repeal of SB5 in Ohio.
June 24, 2011
Sudden Rush
Sudden rush
June 22, 2011
The House rushed to approve a flawed photo ID requirement for Ohio voters. Now Republican senators are doing the same
In March, Republicans in charge of the Ohio House hustled to passage misguided legislation requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. The expectation was, the state Senate would take a more deliberative approach, even put off action until the fall. Then, on Tuesday morning, Keith Faber, the chairman of the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee, delivered the big surprise: The photo ID proposal would be folded into a larger elections bill headed for a committee vote in the afternoon and a floor vote today.
Faber argued, essentially, the timing is right, the elections bill headed for passage. Of course, he and his colleagues have known about the long-in-the-works elections proposal for months. If anything, the photo ID bill offended so many because it did not receive the ample airing of the overhaul legislation.
Now, the Senate simply has incorporated the flawed language of the House bill, the requirement that voters present a driver’s license, passport or other government-issued identification card with a photograph. Sound fairly reasonable? Consider that many people with disabilities do not have such identification. One estimate holds that one-quarter of African-Americans and one-fifth of Ohioans over age 65 do not have a photo ID.
Remember, Republican lawmakers already addressed the identification requirement a few years ago, many voters now showing a photo ID at the polls, or a copy of a current utility bill, paycheck or other government document that contains the voter’s name and address. All of this was done in the name of preventing voter fraud, though the problem didn’t exist then — and it still does not.
Jon Husted, the secretary of state, has explained, reasonably, that he could support the photo ID requirement as long as voters have other options for proving their identity at the polls. He now has been stiffed by his fellow Republicans.
The thinking of the majority is curious. Republicans have fanned concern for the false problem of voter fraud, the party of less bureaucracy adding new hoops. In doing so, they have opened the way to real concerns, registered voters facing undue difficulties casting ballots, disenfranchisement, in a word.
Not surprisingly, many of the affected voters are more likely to side with Democratic candidates. The photo ID proposal fits into the pattern of Republican majorities in other states. More, it reflects subtler changes in the larger elections bill, broadening the field for voter error and disqualification, leaving ballots vulnerable to mistakes by poll workers, excessively narrowing the time for early voting.
Republicans carp about the sharp elbows of Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat and the previous secretary of state. Yet she sought a truly inclusive effort to repair the shortcomings in Ohio elections. Now that process has devolved, Republicans inviting the impression of a party in power looking to serve first its own agenda, not the larger interest of the state.
June 24, 2011
Right to Work Causing Controversy
Right to Work Causing Controversy
Jun 21, 2011
Michigan avoided the kind of labor unrest they experienced in Wisconsin earlier this year, but one democratic leader predicts, if conservative republicans start to push right to work legislation, it will create a devastating fight between business and labor.
It drew national attention when organized labor fought the republicans in Wisconsin over collective bargaining rights. The state democratic party chair predicts the same thing could happen here if conservative republicans push right to work in order to create more jobs, they claim.
Mark Brewer, State Democratic Chair: “It won’t create jobs. It will create the biggest multi-year devastating fight that will be all over the national news. Why would anyone want to invest here when we have that kind of fighting here in Michigan?”
Ironically the Republican governor agrees with the democratic party chair. Gov. Snyder says such a debate would be devastating, and while he would sign a right to work bill if it got to his desk, he says it is not one of his priorities. It is a high priority for one GOP conservative.
Rep. Marty Knollenberg, (R) Oakland County: “We’re not abolishing unions. We’re simply saying you should be forced to join a union. Once the public understands that, we’ll get greater buy in.”
Right to work legislation is getting a push from the tea party movement, which reports, in other states, it is working.
Tom Norton, pro-right to work: “These states are growing economically. The unemployment is low. The wages are a lot higher than Michigan.”
Ray Holman, UAW 6000: “We’re facing 70 bad bills that attack collective bargaining rights, and then to add this to the mix is just going to upset people, really.”
Which is what the governor wants to avoid here, but some conservatives say they will move on this later on nonetheless.
June 21, 2011
UFCW Statement on the Proposed NLRB Rule that would Standardize the Representation Election Process
Today’s proposed rule from the National Labor Relations Board comes down to basic fairness on the job. When workers choose to vote to form a union on the job, the vote shouldnt be plagued by delays, bureaucracy or obstacles. Working people are already struggling. And, theyre waiting and wondering when the economy will recover to a point that therell be enough stable, middle class jobs in their communities. They shouldnt have to struggle to get a union voice on the job. They shouldnt have to wait and wonder when theyll get justice on the job.
Just ask the workers at the 2 Sisters Food Group plant in Riverside, California. When a majority decided they wanted a union voice in their workplace, their employer used the lengthy timeline of the NLRB election process to mount a vicious harassment and intimidation campaign. Instead of investing in their workforce, they hired anti-worker consultants. They distributed anti-union flyers. They forced attendance at daily anti-union meetings. They insisted on including leads who appeared to be supervisors in the unit, which workers agreed to, in order to avoid a lengthy pre-election litigation delay.
As Election Day neared, bosses escalated their campaign by hiring uniformed security guards to monitor the comings and goings of every worker. They illegally fired five workers for their union support-one just a week before the election. When the voting came, off-shift workers were forced to wait at a parking lot gate and then personally escorted one by one to the ballot box by the company CEO, then escorted off company grounds.
The harassment, intimidation and illegal firings were too much. Workers feared for their livelihoods, and they narrowly lost their bid for a union.
Todays proposed rule is an acknowledgment that the pressure and bullying 2 Sisters workers encountered shouldnt happen in an American workplace or at an American ballot box. American workers have the right to vote on whether to form a union; and the election process should be straightforward and streamlined; it shouldnt involve long delays nor require workers to navigate a legal maze.