Top Stories

From Center For American Progress
Jun 10 2009 - 8:23pm

Fall River Bio-Processing Facility PLA Calls needed ASAP
Jul 1 2009 - 9:15am

 

Attached is part of Governor Patrick’s message on the Budget for FY 2001 relative to a bio-processing facility being proposed by  the UMass Building Authority in Fall River.  The budget as sent to the Governor would have allowed the UMass Building Authority to bid this project outside the regular bid laws. 

The governor’s message is this: They can utilize alternative procurements methods only if they utilize a Project Labor Agreement.

The Building Authority and the Associated Builders & Contractors are engaged in an aggressive lobbying effort to have the legislature reject this language.  We need your help to block that effort. 

This project will be in the districts of Senator Joan Menard and Representative Michael Rodriques.  It is very important that you contact Senator Menard and Representative Rodriques and urge them to support the governor’s recommendation on Outside Section 105 of the budget without any amendments.  You should also contact Senate President Murray and House Speaker DeLeo with the same message.  These calls need to be made immediately.  The contact info is below.

Fraternally,

Frank Callahan

President

Massachusetts Building Trades Council

(617) 436-3551

State Senator Joan M. Menard

State House, Room 216

Boston, MA 02133

Telephone: 617-722-1114

E-Mail Address: Joan.Menard@state.ma.us

 

 

District Office

1 Government Center, Room 235

Fall River, MA 02722

Tel: 508-235-1199

State Representative Michael J. Rodrigues

State House, Room 167

Boston, MA 02133

Telephone: (617) 722-2230

E-Mail: Rep.MichaelRodrigues@hou.state.ma.us

 

 

District Office

(508) 646-0650

RepMRod2@charterinternet.com
   

Senate President Therese Murray                   Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo

(617) 722-1500                                               (617) 722-2500

Governor Patrick’s message (in part) to the legislature:

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives:

          Pursuant to Article LVI, as amended by Article XC, Section 3 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am returning to you for amendment Section 105 of House Bill No. 4129, “An Act Making Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2010 for the Maintenance of the Departments, Boards, Commissions, Institutions and Certain Activities of the Commonwealth, for Interest, Sinking Fund and Serial Bond Requirements and for Certain Permanent Improvements.”

          Section 105 authorizes the University of Massachusetts Building Authority to use an alternative procurement process, including design-build, for the design and construction of a bio-processing facility in Fall River.   I support the purposes of this section to accelerate and improve this procurement process.

          I am concerned, however, that due to the size, complexity and duration of this project, the public interest and labor harmony require its construction by project labor agreement.  Therefore, I recommend that the Commonwealth, in its capacity as a market participant for public construction projects, require a project labor agreement, including a uniform grievance and arbitration procedure and an obligation not to strike, for construction work on this project.

          For these reasons, I recommend that Section 105 be amended by adding the following words:-  ; provided further, that in order to further promote labor harmony, all construction employees employed in the construction of the bio-processing facility project shall be paid not less than the wage rate established for such work pursuant to a project labor agreement with the appropriate labor organization or labor organizations, which includes (1) a uniform grievance and arbitration procedure for the resolution of work-related disputes on job sites; (2) mutually agreeable uniform work rules and schedules for the project; and (3) an obligation for any such labor organization and its constituent members not to strike with respect to work on such project; provided further, that it shall not be a precondition to the award of a contract that a bidder has previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization, but only that the bidder be willing to execute and comply with the project labor agreement for this project if it is awarded a contract for such designated project.

                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                          Deval Patrick

 

 

Screw That Bulb: How GE Is Plugging Into the Green Movement to Move Jobs and Advanced Technology to China
Jun 29 2009 - 3:00pm

 


 


Save the environment … or save a U.S. job?  That’s the choice General Electric is forcing on U.S. consumers and its own workers. 

GE is promoting new, energy saving light bulbs known as compact fluorescents, or CFLs.  These bulbs last longer and use less energy than the typical incandescent bulbs found in most U.S. homes – but can cost up to 10 times the price.   GE is asking consumers and its employees to sign a pledge to “go green” and start purchasing the CFL light bulbs, which are imported from China.  The problem is that each pledge leads to the loss of jobs in U.S. lighting plants.  GE is actually asking workers in its lighting plants to pledge to put themselves out of a job!   As a company, General Electric is synonymous with the light bulb: Thomas Edison’s incandescent bulbs built GE into the global corporation it is today.  But if GE has its way, it will no longer manufacture light bulbs in the United States. 

Since 1980, employment in GE lighting has dropped by 68%.  If everyone switched to the Chinese-made CFL bulbs, all U.S. plants would close.   But it doesn’t have to be this way.  The growth of “environmentally sustainable technology” was supposed to be a breakthrough on par with the discovery of incandescent bulbs.  Green manufacturing was supposed to stimulate our economy, not lead to further deindustrialization.  Cutting-edge products like the CFLs should lead to more jobs and profits. 

GE is making the profits … but it is sending the jobs to China, a country known for exploiting workers and polluting the environment.  

GE supported a European Commission ban on Chinese-made CFLs … so CFLs bought in Europe are manufactured in Europe.  But GE is refusing to invest in advanced technology for its U.S. plants so workers here can have a future too.  

Please join with us, the workers at GE lighting, to ask GE to manufacture green in U.S. plants, so we all can benefit.  We shouldn’t have to choose between a clean environment or a pink slip for American workers. 

Sign our petition today. 

How you can still buy American
Jun 29 2009 - 1:33pm

Finding US-made goods may take longer -- and cost more money -- but there's lots of evidence to dispel the myth that everything is made someplace else these days.

Even with the law on their side, unions can't catch a break
Jun 29 2009 - 10:21am

Rheaume charged that Larry Oliveira, the School Department's business manager, said it wasn't necessary to enforce the municipal ordinance on apprentice programs because it had not been enforced in 11 years.

Quality Concrete owner indicted in August 2007 child's death
Jun 29 2009 - 9:24am

Our investigation shows young Codey Duclos’ tragic death could have been averted were it not for the wanton and reckless conduct of Mr. Douglass, in his role as owner and proprietor of Quality Concrete, in failing to take any steps to install safeguards that would have protected his employees and the children that were known to play in the area.” District Attorney Sam Sutter said.

Late Night Brainstorming Session
Jun 25 2009 - 8:17am

HAARM is a work of parody by SEIU's Change That Works campaign

 

Taft-Hartley still casts a long shadow over America
Jun 25 2009 - 8:01am

Joe McCarthy voted for it. So did Richard Nixon. John F. Kennedy voted against it. Harry Truman vetoed it, but it still became law.

On June 23, it will be 62 years old, and it still casts a long shadow over the fight for justice in America.

It's the most ominous piece of anti-labor legislation since the Civil War: The Taft-Hartley Act. For more information about how this measure came to be, read on.

Nurses ask for help lifting heavy patients
Jun 24 2009 - 9:51am

Heavier patients mean nurses and nursing assistants are lifting 200- to 400-pound patients several times a day, often with no assistance, said David Schildmeier, spokesman for the Massachusetts Nurses Association, which proposed the legislation calling for hospitals to provide a system to help nurses safely lift and handle patients.

Attend Hearing on Health Care Affordability
Jun 22 2009 - 10:04am
Is a Medicare plan for everyone the answer?
Jun 22 2009 - 9:59am

Last week, Walter Tsou, national board advisor for Physicians for a National Health Program, expressed his support for the bill saying that "when some congressional leaders declare that 'single-payer is off the table,' they're, in effect, saying that insurers will be protected, leaving the pain to patients, taxpayers, and health care providers."

Attorney General’s Office Returns Nearly $560,000 to Workers and Fines Companies $195,000
Jun 18 2009 - 6:00pm

As part of an ongoing effort to address wage violations in the painting industry, the Attorney General’s Office has resolved 27 cases and has recovered nearly $560,000 in restitution for over 250 employees of various employers and fined painting companies nearly $195,000 since the spring of 2008.

more

What Have The Unions Ever Done For Us?

Mass AFL-CIO Rapid Response

Employee Free Choice Act : New Five-Year Study Shows Employers’ Anti-Union Behavior IntensifiesEmployee Free Choice Act New Five-Year Study Shows Employers’ Anti-Union Behavior Intensifies

LEARN

Click here to read a welcome message to "LEARN WorkFamily" by Gordon Pavy, Director of Collective Bargaining of the AFL-CIO.

  

WakeUpWalMartcom




Working America's Job Tracker

2008 Union-Made Car & Truck<br /> Guide

Labor Union Trivia

Think you know your labor history?
Try your luck at these trivia questions from
Dennis' LaborSOLIDARITY
http://www.laborsolid.info/
 

  Employee Free Choice Act: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice - whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up - a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.

FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop - from both sides - when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union.

FACT: Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require "public" union card signings.

FACT: Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law. The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity.

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act's sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States.

FACT: Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with an independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this: it would require an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing - particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union.

From U.S House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor

  Why We Need the Employee Free Choice Act

 

Thanks in large part to the efforts of union volunteers around the country, working families won a strong victory on Nov. 4, sending Barack Obama to the White House and electing a stronger pro-worker majority of senators and representatives.

 

However, winning an election isn't the end of the fight. Now, our elected leaders need to tackle the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They have to keep their promises to the people who voted for them-and we have to give them the support they need to make the tough choices. We need an economic recovery package that will turn around this broken economy for working families with good jobs, green jobs, re-regulation of our financial system and health care that works for all of us. But no matter what else we do, it won't result in real shared prosperity unless we restore workers' freedom to form unions so they can bargain for a better life with better wages and benefits. That's what this proposed legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, will do. The Employee Free Choice Act will:

 

  • Put real teeth in the laws that are supposed to bar companies from intimidating, harassing-even firing-workers who want to form unions.
  • Allow workers to form their union when a majority signs cards indicating that's what they desire.
  • Require arbitration to end corporate foot-dragging when workers try to get a first contract.

 

The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field that today leaves all the power in the hands of corporations, not workers.

 

And Big Business and the front groups set up by corporations are preparing an all-out, $200 million propaganda and lobbying war to block it.

 

Unions have made passage of the Employee Free Choice Act a top priority for this year because it is the key to good wages, benefits, a voice in the workplace and the amplified political voice unions bring workers. In 2007, the U.S. House passed the measure and it had majority support in the Senate, but a minority killed it with a filibuster, emboldened by President George W. Bush's promise to veto the legislation. Now we have elected a new Congress that has promised to be beside us in this fight and a president who has promised to sign the Employee Free Choice Act.

 

Here are the facts on why we need the Employee Free Choice Act:

 

Working families are struggling. For too long, workers haven't had the power to get their fair share of the value they create. Workers are finding it harder and harder to stay in our homes, pay for our health care and save for our retirement. And our economy is suffering as a result.

 

Unions make people's lives better. The freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life is a basic human right, and it makes a difference: Union members make 30 percent more than workers who don't have unions. They're 59 percent more likely to have health benefits and four times more likely to have pensions. That's real economic security. Communities with strong unions have higher standards of living for everyone.

 

But the system is broken. More than 60 million workers who don't have a union would join one if they could. But under existing law, corporations essentially have a veto over the process. In our company-dominated system, workers can be intimidated, coerced and even fired by their bosses for trying to form a union. A decision that should be in the hands of workers is instead in the hands of corporate executives.

 

Why union members should support the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't just matter for workers who are trying to form unions. When more workers are in unions, workers have greater strength in numbers to demand good wages and good benefits across communities and industries. That raises the living and working standards for all workers and helps us all bargain for better contracts and counterbalance corporate power.

 

The Employee Free Choice Act means long-term shared prosperity. The Employee Free Choice Act is essential to rebuilding the middle class and ensuring the survival of the American Dream. We can build an economy that works for everyone if workers can exercise the freedom to form unions.