Labor

Must Read: Meyerson on Labor Politics

Joe Mathews — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:40:00 -0400

Anyone interested in the politics of Los Angeles and California -- which are increasingly the politics of labor -- should read Harold Meyerson's piece in today's Los Angeles Times. He lays out one of the internal struggles within labor, involving both SEIU and Unite Here. Meyerson has limited space here, and doesn't draw detailed connections to the state's politics. But he makes the point that the fights (and I blame SEIU for much of the internal strife, which is essentially a policy of self-sabotage) could be very bad for reform in the city and in the state.

In this one passage, he draws a link to how the fighting could spoil an opportunity for crucial budget reform in the state:

"The SEIU's Los Angeles locals represent nearly half the members in the 800,000-member County Federation. If those members opted to withhold dues or their participation in the federation's campaigns, they could cripple the most significant force in California politics. In the '90s, labor played a decisive role in transforming the congressional and legislative districts in Los Angeles' suburbs from Republican to Democratic. Last November, Barack Obama carried seven Southern California congressional districts currently represented by Republicans. A push by a unified labor movement over the next three elections could turn L.A.'s exurbs Democratic too, and give labor-friendly Democrats a decisive two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature.

"As the state's largest public-sector and healthcare union, the SEIU would benefit greatly from such a change."

Salam: Rethinking the Right's Approach to Organized Labor

Reihan Salam — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:38:00 -0500

This title is biting off more than I can chew.

Ever since I read Richard Freeman’s America Works, I’ve been thinking about the idea, and the value, of representation in the workplace. From Virginia Postrel to the Freelancers Union to Andy Stern, there have been a lot of interesting arguments about how to think about unionism beyond collective bargaining..

Compromise or Bribery?

Joe Mathews — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:53:00 -0500

Last fall's initiative campaigns in Colorado saw an extraordinary change in the ballot at the last minute. Labor unions agreed to withdraw from the ballot a package of initiatives that targeted businesses in exchange for a promise by business groups to contribute to a labor effort to defeat three business-backed initiatives. The four labor-backed measures technically remained on the ballot, but under Colorado law, without the support of their labor sponsors, the initiatives were a dead letter. The votes cast on those initiatives didn't count.

To some, it looked like business groups were bribing the labor unions to pull the measures off the ballot. So two Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to withdraw a ballot initiative in exchange for money or any promise of value. The bill was defeated in committee last week on a party line vote, the Rocky Mountain News reports.

Colorado Peace: Labor Pulls Four Measures From The Ballot

Joe Mathews — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:43:00 -0400

While I was asleep in Switzerland, peace broke out Thursday in Colorado's multi-measure labor vs. business war. As part of a deal negotiated just before the deadline for sponsors to pull their support for an initiative, business groups agreed to fund a campaign against three ballot initiatives targeting labor prerogatives, including Amendment 47, the initiative to make Colorado a right-to-work state. In return, labor agreed to drop four initiatives that it had qualified to challenge business prerogatives. More details here.

The four labor initiatives being withdrawn are Amendments 53 (making executive wrongdoing a state crime), 55 (requiring employers to show cause before firing a worker), 56 (requiring most employers to provide health insurance for workers), and 57 (permitting workers to sue employers in workers comp cases). The measures still appear on the ballots, which have been printed, but votes won't be counted.

Now business and labor will team up to defeat not only Amendment 47 but also Amendment 49, a so-called "paycheck protection" member limiting the political use of dues by public employee unions, and Amendment 54. This last is an interesting case, since it's not targeted solely at labor unions. It's an attempt to end "pay to play" politics by banning political donations from anyone -- including unions -- who has an exclusive contract with government agencies.

Public Employee Unions Blocking Public Disclosure

Joe Mathews — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:14:00 -0400

The essence of self-government is the ability to know what your government is doing, who it hires and how it spends its money. But public employee unions have been -- shamefully -- seeking to prevent the public from learning such information.

Within the last year, state public employee unions sought to block -- and then boycott -- the Sacramento Bee for publishing the salary data of state workers. There is no more essentially public record than that. Now comes news from San Bernardino that the county is giving unions heads-up about public records requests in an attempt to block them. Unions there are attacking newspapers that make requests for records on county employees. This is particularly outrageous because public records request from newspapers and the public are often the only way to learn how public employees and their unions behave. Public employee unions are exempt from the federal laws and regulations that require unions representing private sector workers to report on their internal finances to the U.S. Department of Labor.

These attempts to block disclosure -- and intimidate those that seek to serve the public -- are likely to boomerang against unions and public employees. They are supposed to be public servants, and as such should welcome scrutiny. If unions keep this up, the appropriate response would be for Congress should pass legislation forcing public employee unions to comply with federal disclosure requirements. Congress also should look at increasing those requirements.

Colorado Compromise?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:35:00 -0400

In Colorado, there's a multi-initiative war between business and labor interests. Each side is sponsoring multiple measures. But there are talks underway, with some participation by Gov. Bill Ritter, aimed at avoiding a full war in November. The Denver Business Journal has details. Labor has agreed to drop its initiatives -- which are aimed at business prerogatives -- if business leaders will help the unions defeat Measure 47, an initiative to make Colorado a "right-to-work," or open shop, state.

ADDED, 9/21: More details on the talks from the Rocky Mountain News, which even has some documents on the deal-making.

Greetings From Denver

Joe Mathews — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:28:00 -0400

I'm back in Denver today and tomorrow, to do a few reporting errands. (Word to the wise: don't be like your blogger, a Socal boy who is constitutionally incapable of checking reports, and pack a jacket when you visit the Mile High City. It's darn cold here). I'm also touching base with a variety of initiative sponsors here. In a lighter-than-expected year for ballot measures nationwide (with measures failing to make the ballot or being pulled in Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, etc.), Colorado is this year's ballot champion. Nineteen -- that's right, 19 -- measures will be on the November state ballot.

But as I talk to folks on both sides of these campaigns, I feel like I'm entering a time machine -- a time machine that takes me back to 2005 California. There, we saw Gov. Schwarzenegger and his business backers qualify a number of initiatives to the ballot. Labor then countered with a fierce "no" campaign and a few counter-measures of its own. Virtually the same thing has happened in Colorado this year, the one key difference being that Gov. Bill Ritter counseled both sides against going to war. There hasn't been much public polling. Private polling that I'm seeing shows some initiatives doing better than others, but all with serious vulnerabilities. It's quite likely that history will repeat itself here and voters will shoot down both the business initiatives and the labor counter-measures. And no one will emerge a winner after a big, multi-front, expensive campaign -- well, no one except the political consultants.

Weekend Round Up: A Colorado Super Bowl?

Joe Mathews — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:34:00 -0400

There are signs that Colorado is headed towards the kind of Labor vs. Business Ballot Initiative Super Bowl that Californians experienced during the special election of 2005. It seems that every few weeks, one side or the other ups the ante by filing new initiatives aimed at the prerogatives of the other. Colorado's governor has called a meeting for Monday in an effort to head off warfare, but don't bet it on him succeeding. Ballot initiatives, once filed, take on lives of their own. A whole industry of people who profit from the measures -- and interest groups who like the measures -- soon seize on viable initiatives. In many cases, the initiative's original sponsors can change their mind and sue for peace -- but it doesn't matter. Here's a round-up of headlines from over the past couple days.

RIGHT TO WORK SUMMIT: The Rocky Mountain News has this report on Monday's scheduled meeting between the governor and advocates for a ballot initiative that would make Colorado a "right-to-work state." California cognoscenti will recognize the name of Jonathan Coors, a former aide to Gov. Schwarzenegger.

MAKING INITIATIVE HARDER: The Rocky Mountain News suggests it should be harder to amend the state constitution by initiative than to establish a statute by initiative. This makes sense, and is the case in a number of states, including California.

DID GATHERERS LIE? And yet another complaint about Colorado signature gatherers. An attorney has filed a complaint with audio evidence of gatherers working on the right-to-work measure. Similar complaints by opponents of an anti-affirmative action measure received attention this past week from The New York Times. The problem with pursuing such complaints is that gathering signatures involves political speech -- the kind that really must be protected by the First Amendment. And complaints about signature gatherers' tactics are almost never based on principle; the people on each side change depending on whose ox is gored by the petition in question.

ARKANSAS DOESN'T LIKE TRAVELERS? A counter-attack begins on a ballot initiative that would force Arkansans over age 13 to produce proof of citizenship or legal residence before they receive public benefits. The measure was filed March 27. Scholarships for undocumented immigrants have been a major issue in the state; former Gov. Mike Huckabee was criticized during his presidential campaign for backing the idea.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE DESERT: A newly filed Arizona initiative would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And the sponsor of an Arizona measure that would have asked voters to ban same-sex marriage died after members of the legislature amended in protections for same-sex couples.

BEATING THE CASINOS: A court in Nevada has turned aside a gaming industry challenge to a teachers' union-backed initiative to raise taxes on casino winnings.

ANOTHER MEASURE ON SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT: Open government initiative qualifies.

MIZZOU NEWS: Is this an April Fool's Joke? A college newspaper reports that a Missouri group wants to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.

COST: Sky High Health Costs Alarm Even the (Relatively) Well-Off

Joanne Kenen — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:46:00 -0400

Union-sponsored online health care polls may not be gold-standard random-sample surveys but they can sure shed some interesting light on how ready Americans are to address the cost and quality challenges in the health care system. The AFL-CIO and Working America sponsored just such a poll and more than 26,000 people took the time to vent. And they were the "haves," not the "have-nots" — most were insured, employed, and college-educated. About two-thirds voiced displeasure with health care quality. A full 95 percent said the system needed "fundamental change" or a complete overhaul.

As we've been known to point out ourselves, cost is a huge problem. One in three respondents reported skipping medical care because of cost. One in four had serious problems paying for needed care.

For the uninsured, the picture was predictably bleaker. In the past year, 76 percent of people who lack insurance themselves and 71 percent of people with uninsured children say someone in their family did not visit a doctor when sick because of cost. More than half had to choose between paying for medical care or drugs and such other essential needs as rent or utilities.

Most reported health care as a key component in the economic challenges facing working families. Almost half of those who answered the poll (48 percent) said they or a family member has stayed in a job to keep health care benefits when they would have preferred changing jobs. The "job lock" rate was higher for Latinos, at 60 percent.

The AFL-CIO also invited people to submit their personal health care stories. Here is one they featured from a woman named Dorene in Veneta, OR:

"I worked for a manufacturer for over 15 years. My wages stayed the same for over 6 years as I found myself paying more and more for health care. Co-pays went up, deductible went up, and the last year I worked there, I was paying a portion of the premium. In late 2006 the company sent my production job to Mexico and China and I was laid off. I could not afford COBRA premiums. I am 2 years away from Medicare and unemployed and on the Faith Based health care system: I pray I don't get sick. Oh yeah, I'm a cancer survivor and I haven't done the yearly checkup in 3 years."

Oh, one more thing -- almost all of those who responded said they planned on voting in November.