This is rich, coming from the campaign of the candidate who wants to raise the retirement age, abolish Social Security and privatize it, opposes the National Labor Relations Act (or at least any NLRA reforms), opposed any form of health care reform, thinks that wealthiest one percent of Americans should pay the same tax rate as the poorest:
Unions "support Sestak because he has the same policies they have, because he supports empowering union bosses at the expense of workers,” said Nachama Soloveichik, Mr. Toomey’s spokeswoman.
Yeah, that's it. Favoring policies that help working people doesn't help them. It only helps "union bosses," whoever they are. The solution to helping workers must be making sure they work longer, shifting the risk to them of their pensions, making sure they can't afford health care, and making sure that those with the most money pay the least proportional taxes.
These are just a few of the reasons why it's important to vote.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Vive le France
Since September 7, when President Sarkozy announced plans to raise the retirement age, millions have taken to the streets in protest against the measure. Trade unions organized the protests, and strikes shut down key industries in transportation, gas, trash, and other services. Unions estimate the number of people involved in the general strike at 3.5 million, with govenment estimates at 1.2 million. In a country of 62 million, those are huge numbers. And, according to some polls, more than 70% of French citizens support the strikers.
Compare that to our own situation. The age at which a person can receive a full retirement benefit from Social Security has gone from 65 to 66, and increases by two months a year until 2022, when the retirement age will be 67. There were no protests, or even a political price to be paid for raising the retirement age. And now the next potential Republican leader of the House is endorsing raising the age to 70. Again, no political price to pay.
I'll save my thoughts on the wisdom of raising the retirement age for Social Security for another day. Suffice to say that I am opposed. All the talk of the system's insolvency is overstated, and is really a proxy for eliminating the system altogether. A quick summary of some of the reasons why it will not "go broke" can be found here. The point here is that on an issue that affects nearly every working American, there is surprisingly little opposition, and certainly no calls for marching in the street, when politicians propose gutting or making social security harder to get.
Despite the French public's protests, it is predicted that President Sarkozy will get his way and the French will have to wait until they turn 62 to retire. However, with large majorities opposed to the proposal, Sarkozy is expected to lose big in the political arena. The strikers may not have mobilized such that the policy will be changed, but they certainly rallied the public.
The only thing more difficult than getting workers to unite and strike in this country is getting the public behind the strike. When SEPTA workers shut down trains in Philadelphia a few years ago, the public was on the side of management, not the workers. Of course, it is difficult to get the public behind you when the benefits you are trying to preserve are benefits the public doesn't have. But with social security, when normal retirement age is raised to 70 (which I expect it will), everyone under 70 loses out. Just don't expect a general strike, or even a political firestorm.
Friday, October 15, 2010
A Tale of Two Union Elections
It is not news that union density in the private sector has declined from 25% in 1975 to 7.2% in 2009. At the same time, union density in the public sector increased from approximately 24% to 37% in 2009. There are many reasons for this, but one of the reasons is that union elections are (or were) rarely contested in the public sector. When employers let employees decide for themselves, rather than making threats of plant closure, not to mention threatening or actually firing employees, employees most of the time choose to unionize.
Two recent union drives illustrate the point. UFCW Local 1776 recently had two election drives that featured similar workforce demographics, similar size of bargaining unit, and similar geographics. In one campaign, the employer threatened to close the plant if the union won, hinted at deportation of immigrants, and ran a hard campaign. The union still won the election, though by a slim margin – and the employer is challenging the election through meritless challenges.
The other election took place at JBS meatpacking plant in Souderton. For this campaign, the union secured the employer’s agreement to be neutral during the election, and agree to a quick election. Employees voted overwhelmingly for the union by a margin of ten to one. As Local 1776 President Wendell Young, IV, pointed out, the outcome of the election “shows that when workers get a free and fair process, they choose union representation.”
Employers argue that they have to run anti-union campaigns so that workers have all the information they need to make an informed choice. I’ve always found this somewhat offensive and patronizing. Employees are perfectly capable, particularly in this day and age of the internet, to make their own choice; additionally, there are always at least some employees opposed to unions who make their views known.
I have more respect for employers who are at least honest and say the reason they want to defeat a union is because they don’t want a union interfering with the way they run a business.
In this era of declining union density, organizing more than a thousand workers at a plant counts as a major win. And the win is not only for the workers, it is also, as Mr. Young said, “better for everyone, workers, the company, and the larger community.”
Two recent union drives illustrate the point. UFCW Local 1776 recently had two election drives that featured similar workforce demographics, similar size of bargaining unit, and similar geographics. In one campaign, the employer threatened to close the plant if the union won, hinted at deportation of immigrants, and ran a hard campaign. The union still won the election, though by a slim margin – and the employer is challenging the election through meritless challenges.
The other election took place at JBS meatpacking plant in Souderton. For this campaign, the union secured the employer’s agreement to be neutral during the election, and agree to a quick election. Employees voted overwhelmingly for the union by a margin of ten to one. As Local 1776 President Wendell Young, IV, pointed out, the outcome of the election “shows that when workers get a free and fair process, they choose union representation.”
Employers argue that they have to run anti-union campaigns so that workers have all the information they need to make an informed choice. I’ve always found this somewhat offensive and patronizing. Employees are perfectly capable, particularly in this day and age of the internet, to make their own choice; additionally, there are always at least some employees opposed to unions who make their views known.
I have more respect for employers who are at least honest and say the reason they want to defeat a union is because they don’t want a union interfering with the way they run a business.
In this era of declining union density, organizing more than a thousand workers at a plant counts as a major win. And the win is not only for the workers, it is also, as Mr. Young said, “better for everyone, workers, the company, and the larger community.”
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Shifting The Cost of Health Care to You
One thing I never understood about the fierce opposition to health care reform is why someone would be against something that could help them financially. Increasingly, employees are being forced to bear the cost of their own health insurance, as more and more companies lay the burden of increased premiums on their employees.
The Kaiser Family Foundation, in its 2010 Employer Health Benefits Survey reports that while the total jump in premiums last year was 3%, employee contributions rose 14%. Workers are now paying, on average, $4,000 a year towards their health insurance. According to the report, "since 2005, workers’ contributions to premiums have gone up 47 percent, while overall premiums rose 27 percent, wages increased 18 percent, and inflation rose 12 percent." Additionally, many employers raised the deductible workers have to pay before they see any help from their employer. Currently some 27% of workers have to pay for the first $1,000 for coverage before they receive anything from their health plans.
Given the dramatic increase in premium share, along with the low wage increases, many employees are worse off now than they were five years ago. And, it isn't getting any better. Employers know that in this economy they can force employees to accept worse coverage because many employees are afraid of losing even more.
By the 1940s, most industrialized nations had begun providing health care to its citizens. In America, we ended up with employers providing that insurance, in part because wage caps during WWII led employers to give compensation to workers in other forms, such as health care benefits. Employers are now reneging on their end of the bargain and, ironically, are also the loudest opponents of health care reform.
The massive shift in risk to employees for their health care and pensions has had no consequences for employers, corporations, and those who advocate for workers to bear the cost of benefits that employers used to provide. Oddly, it has been Obama and those who want to protect pensions and enact reforms that would lower premiums that have been subject to the rage and fury of the Right. I still can't help wondering though why a worker paying $4,000 a year for health insurance plan with high deductibles would buy into the rage.
The Kaiser Family Foundation, in its 2010 Employer Health Benefits Survey reports that while the total jump in premiums last year was 3%, employee contributions rose 14%. Workers are now paying, on average, $4,000 a year towards their health insurance. According to the report, "since 2005, workers’ contributions to premiums have gone up 47 percent, while overall premiums rose 27 percent, wages increased 18 percent, and inflation rose 12 percent." Additionally, many employers raised the deductible workers have to pay before they see any help from their employer. Currently some 27% of workers have to pay for the first $1,000 for coverage before they receive anything from their health plans.
Given the dramatic increase in premium share, along with the low wage increases, many employees are worse off now than they were five years ago. And, it isn't getting any better. Employers know that in this economy they can force employees to accept worse coverage because many employees are afraid of losing even more.
By the 1940s, most industrialized nations had begun providing health care to its citizens. In America, we ended up with employers providing that insurance, in part because wage caps during WWII led employers to give compensation to workers in other forms, such as health care benefits. Employers are now reneging on their end of the bargain and, ironically, are also the loudest opponents of health care reform.
The massive shift in risk to employees for their health care and pensions has had no consequences for employers, corporations, and those who advocate for workers to bear the cost of benefits that employers used to provide. Oddly, it has been Obama and those who want to protect pensions and enact reforms that would lower premiums that have been subject to the rage and fury of the Right. I still can't help wondering though why a worker paying $4,000 a year for health insurance plan with high deductibles would buy into the rage.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A Featherman in City Hall?
Normally I wouldn't post a link to an op-ed article explaining why Philadelphia needs a Republican mayor. But the author of the piece is my cousin, John Featherman, and he himself is running for mayor of Philadelphia as a Republican. It's an extreme longshot -- the last time Philadelphia elected a Republican mayor was in 1952 -- but Sam Katz almost won as a Republican in 1999, so who knows? Featherman makes the case for a GOP mayor here.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Mott's Workers Return
Striking workers at Mott's returned to work this week after a 16-week strike brought on by Mott's insistence that employees accept wage and benefit cuts even though the company was not facing any financial difficulties. Instead, the company took the position that the workers simply made too much compared to other workers in the area.
While the Retail Workers Union is portraying the strike as a victory, and it is in certain ways, the settlement shows just how courageous employees are who do strike. Workers were out on the picket line for 16 weeks. And at the end of it, what did they get? They didn't get raises. They didn't get pension increases. They didn't get better health care. Instead, the barely managed to preserve what they had before their contract expired. Prior to the settlement Mott's was insisting on a pension freeze for employees, a $1.50 per hour pay cuts, increased health care contributions, and a smaller match for employees' 401(k) plans.
After 16 weeks workers did manage to stave off cuts. They returned to work for a wage freeze for three years, elimination of the pension for new workers, a smaller contribution to employees' 401(k) plans, and increased copays for medical insurance. In other words, employees had to strike to barely preserve what they had and take smaller benefit cuts than the company's original proposals.
The disturbing thing about the Mott's strike is that the company insisted on keeping workers' wages and benefits down for no other reason than they thought they could. The company's justification for its draconian proposals was not that it needed concessions to stay competitive, or because it was losing money -- it couldn't really, since its corporate parent made $555 million last year. No, Motts' justification was that it thought its workers made too much money relative to the labor market in the Rochester area.
Driving benefits and wages downward hurts America and hurts our economy. No wonder we're in a recession. (Despite the economists proclamations to the contrary, it still feels like a recession regardless of whether GMP is up.) Without disposable income or easy sources of credit, people can't buy goods and products that keep the economy buzzing along. We've seen stagnant wages for working people for close to thirty years, and the trend does not look promising.
We should salute the workers at Mott's for their stand against concessions and for striking for what's right. Let's be honest about the victory though -- at the end of the day the winner here is probably Mott's, which managed to impose wage freezes and benefit cuts on its employees.
While the Retail Workers Union is portraying the strike as a victory, and it is in certain ways, the settlement shows just how courageous employees are who do strike. Workers were out on the picket line for 16 weeks. And at the end of it, what did they get? They didn't get raises. They didn't get pension increases. They didn't get better health care. Instead, the barely managed to preserve what they had before their contract expired. Prior to the settlement Mott's was insisting on a pension freeze for employees, a $1.50 per hour pay cuts, increased health care contributions, and a smaller match for employees' 401(k) plans.
After 16 weeks workers did manage to stave off cuts. They returned to work for a wage freeze for three years, elimination of the pension for new workers, a smaller contribution to employees' 401(k) plans, and increased copays for medical insurance. In other words, employees had to strike to barely preserve what they had and take smaller benefit cuts than the company's original proposals.
The disturbing thing about the Mott's strike is that the company insisted on keeping workers' wages and benefits down for no other reason than they thought they could. The company's justification for its draconian proposals was not that it needed concessions to stay competitive, or because it was losing money -- it couldn't really, since its corporate parent made $555 million last year. No, Motts' justification was that it thought its workers made too much money relative to the labor market in the Rochester area.
Driving benefits and wages downward hurts America and hurts our economy. No wonder we're in a recession. (Despite the economists proclamations to the contrary, it still feels like a recession regardless of whether GMP is up.) Without disposable income or easy sources of credit, people can't buy goods and products that keep the economy buzzing along. We've seen stagnant wages for working people for close to thirty years, and the trend does not look promising.
We should salute the workers at Mott's for their stand against concessions and for striking for what's right. Let's be honest about the victory though -- at the end of the day the winner here is probably Mott's, which managed to impose wage freezes and benefit cuts on its employees.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Boycott Mott's
A common theme during negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement is the employer crying poor mouse and asking for concessions. Sometimes the need for concessions is genuine, as in the deal struck between the Teamsters and Yellow Freight in which he union agreed to concessions so the company could avoid bankruptcy. A more disturbing theme is now emerging: profitable companies asking workers for concessions for no other reason than they think they can get away with it.
A perfect example of this is taking place in Rochester, New York, at a Mott's apple juice plant. See strike article. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Mott's parent company, made a billion dollars last year, with $555 million in profits. The price of its stock doubled. The company's CEO made $6.5 million dollars last year. And the plant itself is profitable. Yet Mott's is demanding that workers there give up $1.50 an hour in wages, and agree to a freeze in their pensions. The company's rationale is not that it is suffering, or needs the cuts to stay competitive. No, the company's rationale is that workers at the plant are overpaid compared to other workers in the Rochester area. The average wage at Mott's is $19.00 an hour, while the average wage in the area is $14. Mott's bet that workers would accept the wage cuts rather than strike. Instead, workers went on strike, and have been on strike for more than 90 days.
The company is not apologizing for trying to squeeze employees at the plant, some of whom have worked their whole lives there. It has taken out newspaper ads blaming workers for striking despite the fact that they make more than the average wage in Rochester. This tactic has resonance in these trying times. Some in Rochester are resentful that employees at Mott's make $19 an hour while they make less, sometimes much less. These folks miss the broader point that the union is trying to make: we should not be setting wages at the lowest possible point -- instead we should be trying to bring everyone's wages up. Also, higher union wages tend to pull other wages up, since non-union employers tend to pay more if there are other, higher paying union jobs in their sector.
What Mott's is really doing is breaking a contract. Not the CBA, but the social contract. After World War II there was a social contract between corporate America, workers, and the unions that represented workers. Employees agreed to work hard and help make corporations profitable. In return, corporations paid employees well and invested in pension plans that allowed them to retire with dignity. Sometime in the 80s, probably after Reagan fired all the air controllers who went on strike, the contract started to erode. The paradigm shifted so that the number one priority of corporations became increasing stock prices. With executive compensation tied to stock prices, since many of them hold stock options, maximizing stocks at the expense of workers and actual humans became the number one priority for some. The overall effect has been a shift of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. Viva Wall Street!
The strike at Mott's involves only about 305 workers. The bigger struggle, however, implicates all of us.
You have to admire the men and women of Mott's who chose labor action rather than accepting pay cuts when the company is making money hand over fist.
A perfect example of this is taking place in Rochester, New York, at a Mott's apple juice plant. See strike article. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Mott's parent company, made a billion dollars last year, with $555 million in profits. The price of its stock doubled. The company's CEO made $6.5 million dollars last year. And the plant itself is profitable. Yet Mott's is demanding that workers there give up $1.50 an hour in wages, and agree to a freeze in their pensions. The company's rationale is not that it is suffering, or needs the cuts to stay competitive. No, the company's rationale is that workers at the plant are overpaid compared to other workers in the Rochester area. The average wage at Mott's is $19.00 an hour, while the average wage in the area is $14. Mott's bet that workers would accept the wage cuts rather than strike. Instead, workers went on strike, and have been on strike for more than 90 days.
The company is not apologizing for trying to squeeze employees at the plant, some of whom have worked their whole lives there. It has taken out newspaper ads blaming workers for striking despite the fact that they make more than the average wage in Rochester. This tactic has resonance in these trying times. Some in Rochester are resentful that employees at Mott's make $19 an hour while they make less, sometimes much less. These folks miss the broader point that the union is trying to make: we should not be setting wages at the lowest possible point -- instead we should be trying to bring everyone's wages up. Also, higher union wages tend to pull other wages up, since non-union employers tend to pay more if there are other, higher paying union jobs in their sector.
What Mott's is really doing is breaking a contract. Not the CBA, but the social contract. After World War II there was a social contract between corporate America, workers, and the unions that represented workers. Employees agreed to work hard and help make corporations profitable. In return, corporations paid employees well and invested in pension plans that allowed them to retire with dignity. Sometime in the 80s, probably after Reagan fired all the air controllers who went on strike, the contract started to erode. The paradigm shifted so that the number one priority of corporations became increasing stock prices. With executive compensation tied to stock prices, since many of them hold stock options, maximizing stocks at the expense of workers and actual humans became the number one priority for some. The overall effect has been a shift of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes. Viva Wall Street!
The strike at Mott's involves only about 305 workers. The bigger struggle, however, implicates all of us.
You have to admire the men and women of Mott's who chose labor action rather than accepting pay cuts when the company is making money hand over fist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)