MENU

ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
THAT WORKS

CAMPAIGNS & ISSUES

HOW & WHY PEOPLE JOIN UNIONS

LABOR & THE WAR

SUBSCRIBE Enter your email to join Vermont Labor Activist today!

To view messages go to: Archive. Please sign up (through the Archive, by E-mail, or Topica's form above) to participate.

Washington-Orange-Lamoille Counties
CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL
AFL-CIO

UNION MEMBERS' OP EDS & LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

They Break It – Must We Pay for It?

Across the state, working men and women are struggling to keep their heads above water. This economic crisis is a product of the actions of financiers, bankers and corporate executives. They created this crisis, and now they want us to pay for it.

Economists, one’s that have been proven right about this economic meltdown, are warning that we are in for a wild ride:

“This is the big one … by far and away the biggest threat to the system as a whole that we've seen in my lifetime, and I think the biggest threat since the late 1920s…we are not in a temporary economic lull, an ordinary recession, from which we will emerge to return to business-as-usual. We are at the beginning of a long, profound, painful process of change.”  - Statement by economist James Galbraith, before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives.

The crisis has prompted the kind of state intervention not seen for 70 years, and has dealt a death-blow to the free-market dogma of the past 25 years. For decades we've been told that the only way to a dynamic economy is privatization and fiercer free-market competition. Those politics and policies are no longer viable. Now they say that the only escape from economic disaster is to bailout the big banks and insurance companies. The $2 trillion they are throwing at the financial industry is just the beginning. Many of the too-big-to-fail banks, insurance companies, corporations (GE, auto companies…) are lining up at the trough for a taxpayer payout.

Working people, we who produced the wealth from which huge profits were grabbed in the boom, we don’t get bailed out. Working-class households lose our homes, our jobs, buying-power, and, for those who are calling the shots, that is all a "necessary correction". At least, that is what is happening so far.

We’re told that we must all tighten our belts. But self-sacrifice will not help us out of this crisis because our actions did not get us here in the first place. The reasons for the economic crisis are rooted in their system: with its inbuilt cycles of booms and busts, where things are produced for profit, not need,  suddenly do not find a market and production grinds to a halt, where speculation boosts unsustainable investment ... things collapse and leave people without jobs, without healthcare, and homes being repossessed.

The shift in wealth from working people to the wealthy fueled the speculative financial booms we’ve been seeing since the 1980s which exploded in 2007, with the subprime housing mortgage bust quickly spreading to other credit markets and generalizing throughout the US economy, and precipitating a synchronized global contraction. This last September-October the financial crisis accelerated into the Banking Panic of 2008. Within a month or so the Real Economy fell off a cliff.

The economy has spiraled into a vicious downward cycle. Layoffs are mounting daily and at a staggering rate—we haven’t seen employment fall like this in over thirty years. New figures show that private firms cut 742,000 jobs in March 2009 (most since records began in 2001). The unemployment rate for March is expected to hit 8.5%. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs - more than half of that in the last four months alone.

A more significant measure that includes the unemployed, people involuntarily working part-time, new entrants who can’t find a job, and those who have given up looking for work surged to 14.8% in February. This amounts to 22.5 million workers who are struggling to find a decent job. That translates into 30 or 40 million people immediately threatened with the loss of their family’s health insurance, a plunge into poverty, or outright homelessness! Roughly 14,000 people became uninsured every day in December and January.

We will almost certainly continue to see job losses for the rest of the year and into 2010 even with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus. This package is not going to regenerate anywhere near the number of  jobs that we are talking about -- and jobs are the most important thing, because job loss is what's driving the collapse of consumption and bringing down the economy. The stimulus is aimed at softening the collapse, not really creating many jobs. According to economist Jack Rasmus, “The stimulus plan falls short when it comes to creating jobs -- I predict they will have to come up with a Stimulus Plan II at some point.”
In addition to the massive job losses and much of the value of our pensions,  more than 2 million people have lost their homes to foreclosure -- and it is estimated that another 5 to 7 million people risk foreclosure in the coming 18 months. Meanwhile, social services are being dismantled left and right as state and local budgets are facing unprecedented deficits.

According to the Vermont Livable Wage Campaign, even before this economic meltdown, “45% of all jobs in Vermont paid a median wage below the livable wage for a single person. If the primary purpose of the economy is to create jobs and opportunity, it is not working for many Vermonters.”

Vermont’s jobs downturn started before the national recession hit. Vermont's job loss during 2008—3.7 percent—was the biggest since the government began collecting data in 1939. Job losses began in July 2007, accelerating in the past year, so that we’ve we lost some 13,700 jobs, since February 2008.  

Elderly Vermonters are under a tremendous squeeze, from the stock market collapse, from falling house prices, and from falling interest rates. 

Meanwhile, Gov. Douglas continues to push policies that, if taken up by other states as well, would throw the economy into another depression. The proposal by Gov. Douglas to deal with the current state deficit by cutting 600 state jobs would seriously harm Vermont's economy.
Cutting these jobs will reduce the state budget deficit by only $17 million, but, according to analyst Wally Roberts writing in the Times Argus (using methodology from the Center for Economic and Policy Research which projects the effect of state budget adjustments on each state's economy), “if the governor does win authority to cut 600 jobs, the Gross State Product would decline by $811.3 million or 3.6 percent based on the state's 2007 GSP of $22.5 billion.”

According to the Vermont Workers Center:
The Douglas administration's budget proposal threatens the fundamental human rights of Vermonters by disregarding such basic needs as healthcare, housing, education, dignified employment and social security. The administration's attempt to cut social services, reduce government oversight and lay off workers, while it continues to pursue regressive fiscal policy, represents a failure to recognize, accept and uphold the government's human-rights obligations to its people. Rather than seek economic justice, the Douglas administration clings to an economic theory that has been indisputably discredited by recent events. Rather than seek social justice, the Douglas administration offers only neglect of those most in need.

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals that state deficits are projected to be $350 billion over the next 30 months. But the stimulus recovery plan includes only about $150 billion that can be used to address those shortfalls, meaning that 55% to 60% of projected state deficits will remain. Vermont’s state budget exceeds the projected revenue. Even with the federal stimulus dollars, we are looking at a deficit in the 2010 budget and a projected $200 million plus deficit in the 2011 budget.

Vermont's share of the stimulus package does provide substantial resources over the next couple of years. Current estimates are approximately $925-950 million, some to state government, some to local government, some to business, and some to individuals. In addition, tax cuts estimated at over $500 million will benefit Vermont individuals and business.
But the aid is nowhere near the amount needed to halt the massive job cuts. Even if we accept the White Houses’ recovery plan’s most optimistic guesstimates of job creation, a study by the Economic Policy Institute projects that Vermont is expected to lose some 9,000 jobs compared to pre-recession employment levels.

In times like this, big companies and politicians frame concessions as shared sacrifice—everyone pulling together to get “us” back on our feet.  For example, the Governor is using this downturn as the excuse for what he has wanted to do for years: slash the workforce in state government and our public schools – not coincidentally almost the last remaining bastions of unionization in Vermont.

We have just seen the state employee’s union offer to essentially re-open their contract and give back $2600 in annual pay. They reached out their hand to the Douglas Administration – and they bit it!  Administration Secretary Neal Lunderville says that this isn’t enough – that he’s seeking permanent cuts in jobs, wages and benefits! The governor, and the legislative leadership too, are turning to a well-rehearsed script: ask for concessions. The supposed payoff?  You’ll get to keep your job. Three decades of declining living standards are proof that concessions don’t save jobs.

The Governor and legislative leadership are preparing a fourth round of state budget cuts this year. Beyond the immediate human costs, such cuts would, due to their multiplier effect, make the economy contract even more, leading to further cuts in Vermonters jobs and incomes.
Leading economists suggest that during a recession raising taxes on upper income taxpayers produces less of a drag on the economy than cutting services and laying off state workers, which increases joblessness. The reasons are simple. Almost every dollar that states and localities spend on aid for the needy, salaries of public employees, and other vital services enters the local economy immediately. So if states cut their spending in these areas, overall demand suffers at a time when demand is already too low and support services are most needed. Democratic House Speaker Shap Smith recently stated, "It is hard to see how a federal stimulus works if you are counteracting that stimulus with actions you are taking at the state level." Speaker Smith does get it, so the Legislature may be expected to reject many, but not all, of the governor's most damaging proposals.

However, according to the Governor, there is no alternative to cutting essential services and layoffs: "Vermonters have no capacity for higher taxes – another approach advanced to shore up state coffers." Is that all Vermonters?  From 2001 to 2006, those with an income of $1,000,000 or more made up the fastest growing income class in Vermont, doubling from 226 to 492.  Their total income nearly tripled from $507 million to $1.4 billion.

Vermont Interfaith Action, in disagreeing with the administration’s declaration that there is no capacity in our state to raise more revenue, cites research proving that the wealthy have flourished while paying a lower percentage of their income in Vermont taxes:
“Since 2003 the number of persons reporting more than a half million dollars in adjusted gross income has more than doubled.  COMBINED, their income has tripled to almost $2.3 billion. According to the Vermont Tax Department in 2003 4158 filers totaled $1.74 billion in total income. They paid $97 million in tax. Four years later 7829 filers had a total income of $4.07 billion, and they paid $211.3 million in tax.”

Remarkably, Vermont's tax rate for the very wealthy has plummeted by about two-thirds since 1970. According to independent policy analyst Doug Hoffer:

in 2003 those earning over $500,000 paid 5.9% of their adjusted gross income in state income taxes (not much when you consider our top marginal rate is 9.5%). But in 2007 this group paid only 5.4% … in state income taxes. That's right. The percentage of income they paid in state income taxes went down! The "affordability agenda" is nothing more than an ideologically driven attempt to scare people. It is - and always has been - an effort intended to build a case against government spending and against taxes (especially those on the wealthy).

Based on these facts, and the need for new revenue, Hoffer advocates eliminating the provision in Vermont's capital gains tax that allows those with this form of unearned income to exclude 40 percent of it. He says this provision, "has cost the state almost $160 million in foregone revenue," between the provision's adoption in 2002 and 2006, "including $57 million in 2006 alone. So when some suggest that we've been "living beyond our means", remember that our "means" ain't what they used to be.”

Hoffer also recommends creating a new top rate for those earning more than $1 million (the current top rate kicks in at about $350,000) - a group that has benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts of the last 30 years.

Rep. Michael Fisher (D-Lincoln) recently proposed a modest temporary surcharge on the top three tiers of income categories to help makes ends meet. Fisher said he modeled his plan on that used by former Republican Gov. Richard Snelling to solve a serious revenue deficit in 1991. Fisher’s proposal would raise about $40 million. The remaining revenue shortfall could be eliminated by using the Rainy Day Fund.

Millions of people are losing their employer-sponsored health insurance, joining the 46 million who already lack coverage. Millions more, including those with insurance, are finding it harder to pay their co-pays and deductibles and are scrimping on their medications and doctor visits. Many go without care, risking their health and often their very lives.

Obama’s proposed budget calls for $634 billion in healthcare funding. But, if this funding goes to the private insurance companies, as appears to be the case, it is not nearly enough, and there will be no real solution to the healthcare crisis in our country. The private, for-profit health insurance companies add huge administrative costs but no value to the healthcare system. Single-payer/improved Medicare for All offers a viable solution. But when it comes to the debate in Washington, DC, single payer stands ignored in spite of all of the evidence that it saves money, contains future spending, would include everyone, and would improve the economy.

National legislation like HR 676, or state legislation like H100, would solve Vermont’s budget problems. The State would save over $80 million per year on state employee health care costs alone if HR 676 is adopted. Over three years, we would save $240 million – nearly equal to the estimated budget deficit from FY09 to FY11. This doesn’t even include savings for the cost of health care for retirees or the medical portion of Workers Compensation.

We should resist — or we will suffer from the effects of this downturn long after the downturn has finished. The outcome is not set in advance. The US working class came out of the depression of the 1930s more unionized, and with more union rights, than it went in. Wages as a share of national income rose. How that works out depends on what we do together.

People's Plan, which embraces and embodies the role of government as a guarantor of the human rights of its people. Among these rights are the right to health, the right to housing, the right to education, the right to dignified work and the right to security in times of need. The People's Plan assures that Vermont can become a place where these rights are afforded to everyone, without exception, without discrimination and with the burdens and benefits shared equitably. It is a plan for economic recovery based on a vision of justice. (They) call upon the Legislature to enact a People's Plan, which:

• maintains and expands programs in areas of fundamental need, including human services, housing, education and employment;
• institutes equitable revenue policies that increase the contribution of the wealthy and that tax unearned income at no less than the same rate as other income;
• establishes a system of universal healthcare that is equitable, accountable to the people and eliminates all barriers to the enjoyment of the human right to health.

This is part of an escalating series of actions leading up to a mass May 1st rally at the Statehouse - uniting the Healthcare Is a Human Right campaign with the fight to stop the state and municipal service cuts and layoffs of public employees.

Times Argus letter published Jul 11, 2007
Don't blame the victims

The article, "One third of Vermont youth drop out of work force," gets it wrong, blaming the victims — working Vermonters — instead of low-road employers. The article quotes Mr. Stenger about "good-paying, open positions," but provides no facts to back up his assertions. You report that Rep. Kupersmith claims that "employers have the jobs, but Vermont lacks the trained workforce to take those positions."

The so-called "drifters" may take advantage of new training opportunities, but most simply need livable wage jobs. Many of us used to find such work in factories or the building trades. Although factory jobs have declined, and wages too, the building trades could still offer a decent life. However, anti-union campaigns and policies have succeeded in depressing wages. We now have major employers using the H2B program to bring in hundreds of aliens to work (what are now) low-wage construction jobs, while some of our skilled trades-people leave the state for better pay.

As for the departing college grads, they're following the money. Many professional jobs in Vermont pay less than in other states. Actually, if every adult in Vermont had a graduate degree, many would still leave because 40 percent of the jobs require nothing more than short-term on-the-job training.

About all those "good-paying open positions." Where are they? Most entry level jobs in Vermont for new college grads are not "good paying" compared to other areas (let alone jobs for those with skills other than a degree). Mr. Stenger may be referring to mid-level professional positions, but many of those jobs are filled by in-migrants from other states.

Wage problems faced by the working Vermonters do not come because we have skill deficits, or because of skill shortages that hamper our competitiveness. We have had rapid productivity growth for the last 10 years with the very same workers who now do not participate in economic growth. Moreover, it is hard to claim that the stagnant wages of college graduates and the failure of new college graduates to locate jobs with benefits is the result of deficient skills.

No, Vermont's workers do not face a "skills deficit," rather we face a deficit in the wages and benefits that employers provide. This gap between pay and productivity growth is the result of policies that shift bargaining power away from the vast majority of us and toward big employers: the steep drop in unionization rates; unfettered globalization and off-shoring that increasingly puts us in competition with workers around the world; economic deregulation and the privatization of government services; and escalating pay for CEOs.

Unless and until Vermont employers raise wages, the exodus will continue.

Traven Leyshon

Burlington Free Press

Business groups and others that oppose the Employee Free Choice Act claim the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system is a good and democratic thing. But by the time employees get to vote, the environment has been so poisoned by employer intimidation and harassment that free and fair choice isn’t an option.

Currently a quarter of employers iillegally fire at least one worker during organizing campaigns, and 1in 5 active union supporters are fired during recognition campaigns. 78% of employers conduct on-on-one anti-union meetings between employees and their supervisors, and 92% force the employees to attend anti-union talks. Three-quarters of employers hire anti-union consultants when faced organizing. The trump card: 51% of companies threaten to close if a union wins, but only 1% actually do. This is why we need new rules for forming unions

IRS data shows that the bottom 90 percent of Americans made less money in 2005 than they had in 2004. Total reported income in the US increased by 9 percent in 2005 over 2004. All of that increase, however, went to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and the wealthiest 1 percent experienced an increase of 14 percent. Among the remaining 90 percent, income actually decreased by 0.6 percent.

Yet 2005 wasn't a year of economic downturn. The economy was humming along. It was only the working people who weren't doing very well.

This amounts to a triumph of corporate power, and of the conservative economics that shores it up.

Once upon a time, American prosperity benefited Americans. From 1947 through 1973, productivity rose by 104%, and median family income rose by amount. Those were years of real union power in which one-quarter of the workforce, and in some years one-third, was unionized. As worker power declines, so do living standards. Secure pensions are history; employer-provided health benefits are going fast.

Restoring the right of workers to join unions, is a key to rebuilding a vibrant middle class. There's a clear way to do that. By compelling employers to recognize unions if a majority of their workers sign affiliation cards, legislation would bring balance to workplace relations and to the economy as well.

Traven Leyshon
Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:57 pm

Burlington Free Press

Unions restore productivity, pay link
By Traven Leyshon

April 10, 2007
Your editorial, "Union bill hurts workers and business" (March 29) asserts that "a bill that makes it easier to organize workers passed by the House last week sends the wrong message about the state's business climate without necessarily helping workers."

You are ignoring the positive impact of unions on working families' paychecks and the economy.

We are working harder than ever before, but our efforts are not being rewarded. The growing gaps in wages and wealth threaten the productivity of our economy and our democracy. Our middle class grew in the 1940-60s, when unions were strong and guaranteed that productivity and profit were broadly shared.

But now a decline in union membership has been a big factor in rising inequality. When unions were stronger, CEO pay was "only" 24 times the pay of average workers. Today, CEO pay is 262 times the pay of average employees.

Working people have been getting a shrinking piece of the pie. Productivity has risen almost 20 percent over the past five years, but real wages for workers have been flat. In 2005, the economy posted solid gains, yet real income fell for the bottom 90 percent of Americans!

Unions make work pay, restoring the link between productivity and pay, and by providing training, health coverage, and pension benefits.

Unions build our democracy as well as our economy. Union families are more likely to vote, and organizations from the Red Cross to United Way benefit from the disproportionate contributions and participation of union members.

In the workplace, unions promote opportunity, security, and fairness. In Vermont, employment is "at will." Employers can fire employees for no reason or any reason, except those specifically proscribed by law. Employees without a union to protect them can be fired on a whim. By contrast, union contracts require that the employer establish just cause before disciplining or firing an employee. This gives workers the security to challenge unsafe, unfair, unlawful, unproductive or wasteful practices, and to recommend better alternatives.

Comparable workers with a union contract have: 14.7 percent higher wages, 28.2 percent greater likelihood of having employer-provided health insurance, 53.9 percent greater likelihood of having pension coverage, and14.3 percent more paid time off.

Do unions help or hurt companies? Studies show that unions can have substantial positive effects. For example, unionized Costco competes successfully with non-union Wal-Mart even though Costco's labor costs are 40 percent higher -- and Costco generates almost twice as much profit per employee as Wal-Mart's Sam's Club.

Research shows that 58 percent of nonunion workers in 2005 would have voted for a union if given the opportunity. But the current system for forming unions is broken. Employers routinely block workers' freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing workers.

The Vermont Employee Free Choice Act for public sector workers and the national Employee Free Choice Act, just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (of which our entire congressional delegation is a cosponsor), are steps in the right direction to restoring the right of freedom of association. They would restore the freedom to make our own choice about whether to have a union and bargain for a better life -- without interference from management. They would help restore our purchasing power and lift the living standards of the 90 percent of Americans who have endured the middle-class squeeze, or been left out of our economic gains altogether.
Traven Leyshon of Middlesex is director of High Road Vermont Ltd.

Burlington Free Press

My Turn: Union rule change good for workers

By Rabbi Joshua Chasan In its editorial ("Union bill hurts workers and business," March 29), the Free Press expresses alarm at the message the Legisla

April 4, 2007
Make no mistake about it. H.353 does not appear out of a vacuum. Workers are increasingly powerless, not only to protect themselves, but also to protect the community's interest when their work bears upon it. For example, while recent letters to this newspaper complain about COTS' workers wanting more money, the efforts to form a union at COTS has nothing to do with wages and everything to do with how the organization is run.

Democracy depends upon increasing participation by citizens in our society. Decades ago, when capitalism was faltering, labor unions were recognized by business people and the media for their ability to help create social balance. It remains the right of workers in the United States of America to associate freely and form unions of their choice, the unwillingness of COTS' management to recognize this right notwithstanding.

What is happening at COTS right now -- an anti-union campaign financed with precious funds donated by many of us with whom COTS' management has refused to speak for about six months -- would not be possible if H.353 were the law of Vermont and it extended to all workers. The Free Press is concerned that H.353 "robs managers of an assured chance to have their say with workers about the union drive." In fact, H.353 would protect some workers (state employees) from the intimidating tactics of employers who hold most of the cards, especially in a state in which workers can be fired at will.

What is missing from the Free Press' reckoning is an understanding of this inherent inequality in labor-management relationships. Union elections are different from other kinds of elections because of the inherent coercive power that management holds over employees, the power to deprive them of their livelihood and to control their pay, hours and working conditions. According to a survey of 400 NLRB election campaigns in 1998 and 1999, 36 percent of workers who vote against union representation explain their vote as a response to employer pressure. H.353 is an attempt to avoid this harassment, to which workers at COTS now are being subjected as their election approaches on April 4.

The thoughts and prayers of many of us, including business people, are with the workers at COTS, the vast majority of whom signed on to a union, and who now are being subjected to a brutal campaign to break their solidarity, at the expense of precious resources which are desperately needed by our homeless neighbors.

Rabbi Joshua Chasan of Ohavi Zedek Synagogue lives in Burlington.

Revisionist Labor History McClaughry-style
Kurt Staudter in While We Were Sleeping... 4/4 column

                I’m a big fan of John McClaughry and the Ethan Allen Institute: For years now his rants are my time proven cure for writers’ block. If I want to get sufficiently upset about one of the hot topics of debate in the statehouse, all I have to do is read what John has written on the subject, and presto, I have a column. Through the years I’ve respected his right to have his say, and I do my part to steer folks in a more enlightened direction. This week however I feel compelled to respond directly to his blatant misrepresentation of Senator Robert “Fighting Bob” Lafollette (1855-1925), a Wisconsin Republican, and one of the most notable progressive voices that emerged from the Gilded Age. The implication by McClaughry that old Figthtin’ Bob would have objected to recent labor legislation passed in Vermont and Washington, DC is just plain wrong, but what’s more outrageous, and the reason I can’t just let this affront pass without comment, is his insulting, falsely stereotypical, and offensively, ethnically tinged representation of union organizers.

                This week McClaughry has taken issue with the recent passage of “card check” legislation by the Vermont House, and he complains in his offering that “Labor today is desperate for card check bills for one good reason: Too many workers don’t see that union organization is in their interest and don’t want to pay the dues.” Oh really, then how come in the most recent polling 58% of workers asked said they’d join a union if they could? That could be as many as 60 million workers. Here’s another statistic: “77% (of the) public… says strong laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions – without employer interference – are important.” The problem that John has with this legislation is that it would take the National Labor Relations Board style secret ballot out of the union recognition process. With card check workers on a job would get together and sign cards stating their willingness to join a union. Once one more than 50% the workers has signed on, the employer would be forced to begin negotiations for a first contract. John points out that there would be ample opportunity for union organizers to employ threats and “strong-arm tactics” in order to win the right to a union. I’ll talk more about what crawled out of McClaughry’s imagination on that point in a minute, but first let’s look at the real-life  “strong-arm tactics” that are used by employers that want to avoid a union under the current rules.

According to statistics collected by the AFL-CIO, the largest workplace justice organization in the nation representing most of organized labor, a quarter of all employers will illegally fire at least one worker during an organizing campaign, and 1in 5 active union supporters will be fired during the campaign to win recognition. 78% of employers will conduct on-on-one anti-union meetings between employees and their supervisors, and 92% force the employees to attend mandatory anti-union presentations. Three-quarters of all employers hire anti-union consultants when faced with pro-union activities. Here’s the one I like: 51% of companies threaten to close the plant if a union wins, and only 1% actually do. And this is why we need new rules for forming unions, more than one-third of all unions that win the right to collectively bargain in a workplace never get a first contract. This has happened after a number of successful union drives in Vermont including one at Berlin Health and Rehab. The company just plays a delaying game until the workers vote to decertify the union.

In order to make his point about the strong-arm tactics that unions might employ, McClaughry conjures up some irrelevant and outdated caricatures of union organizers as Italian thugs with the names of “Guido” and “Branko,” that say to a perspective union member, “We want you to sign dis card sayin’ you want our union to be your union.” It goes on to add, “You gotta problem wid dat? Or maybe you wanna step out behind dis shed here and discuss it wid us?” I was appalled when I read this, and the offensiveness of the ethnically charged stereotype is deserving of an apology. No where does John see fit to tell of the real-life threats to one’s livelihood that workers routinely receive from the anti-union thugs brought in by management. I guess that’s because they all dress in suits, went to our best business or law schools, and don’t talk in accents that he can make fun of.

With the announcement last week that Circuit City would fire 3,400 workers nation-wide, and 7 in Vermont, in an effort to lower their wages - Then there is the fact that only 12% of the workforce in now unionized, we are left with no choice but to reexamine the ways to achieve workplace justice. The efforts of Fightin’ Bob in the early 1900s led to the Wagner Act, one-third of the workers being unionized by the 1950s, and unprecedented middle-class prosperity. My guess is that if Robert LaFollette lived to see the Republican led effort to gut Wagner with the Taft-Hartly Act, and the employer dominated union elections that came from that anti-union legislation; he would have demanded card check as an equalizer. However, according to one of McClaughry’s heroes Calvin Coolidge, Lafollette was a “dangerous radical” as he fought against the domination of workers and government by corporations: A fight still worth winning.

Published Labor Day 2001 in the Burlington Free Press:
Labor Day 2001 Sees Growing Concerns About Rights at Work

by Traven Leyshon, President Washington & Orange Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Labor Day 2001 finds working Vermonters increasingly troubled about the influence of powerful corporations. According to an independent survey, commissioned by the AFL-CIO, employees don't trust corporations -- or the Bush Administration. Sixty-three percent of workers have little or no trust that corporations will treat employees fairly. Sixty-seven percent have little or no trust in the White House to stand up for rights we value.

This Labor Day, picnics, parades, and other events will focus on the challenges working people face when we try to win a measure of stability, security and respect for fundamental rights at work. At least 175,000 workers joined unions across the U.S. in the first six months of this year - including the UVM faculty in Burlington. That's a 10 percent increase over last year. Most organizing campaigns start when workers discover that they have problems that can only be resolved through the collective voice and power a union can bring. From IBM employees to nursing home workers, municipal employees, and college professors, more Vermonters are striving to improve conditions at their jobsites by joining together.

But a third of employers fire workers who try to form unions, a shocking 91 percent hold mandatory, high-pressure anti-union meetings, and many bosses make plant-closing threats. Intimidation, harassment, and surveillance have become routine. According to a study by the international watchdog group, Human Rights Watch: "Workers' freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States, and the government is often failing in its responsibility under international human rights standards to protect workers' rights." Experience, such as that of the nursing home workers at the Berlin Health and Rehabilitation Center, shows that some corporations here in Vermont will use supervisors to pressure workers in one-on-one meetings and scare tactics to stop workers from organizing or achieving a fair contract.

Most Americans believe workers' freedom to choose a union should be protected, and disapprove of such employer efforts. Public attitudes and assistance from community leaders are making what happens in the workplace an issue of importance to entire communities. Civic leaders, clergy and ordinary Vermonters are telling employers to respect the basic freedom for people to make their own choice about whether to join a union. Broad participation in recent Barre and Burlington conferences and rallies for workers' rights demonstrates that people here want fairness.

We also want our voice to be heard in government. Unions are mobilizing to win real protections against repetitive stress injuries, to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and to halt fast track authority and make sure trade agreements include worker and environmental protections.

Americans are increasingly nervous about the economy. In the last year, some 850,000 production jobs were lost, and more than 1 million since 1999. Plant closings at Ethan Allen, Johnson Controls, Stanley Works, Tensolite, and recent layoffs at Bombardier are just some of the recent Vermont casualties. The Economic Policy Institute estimates the loss of 1,611 Vermont jobs between 1993 and 2000 under NAFTA. Ethan Allen workers will remind us that this number, and the associated human costs, are growing. Manufacturing jobs paying decent wages are endangered. More of us are stuck in dead end, sub-living wage jobs. Absent more union organizing, there is nothing to stop the race to the bottom in wages, benefits and working conditions for all workers.

If neighbors, congregations, political, religious and civic leaders stand together with working Vermonters and our unions on this Labor Day and after, we can hold corporations and our government accountable and ensure democracy, freedom of association, and equality.

***

Traven Leyshon, President Washington & Orange Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Questions and comments can be sent to: wovtclc@workingfamilies.com

Get off The Fast Track and onto the Right Track

by Traven Leyshon, President Washington & Orange Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO

With little public debate, President Bush is urging Congress this Labor Day to grant him sweeping new powers to negotiate trade agreements. What he wants is called "fast track" authority; euphemistically termed "trade promotion authority." . Under it, he could negotiate new trade agreements behind closed doors with foreign governments, then present the pacts to Congress for a single, up-or-down vote for passage.

Ironically, President Bush does not need fast track; he can negotiate new trade agreements without it. But with fast track trade authority our representatives in Congress would be handcuffed from making changes, no matter how heavily the trade deals favored big corporations over working families and over clean air and clean water. No president should be given such broad and unilateral powers.

If Congress gives in and grants President Bush fast track authority, it will be putting at risk not only good jobs, but also the laws that protect our environment and guarantee the safety of our food and consumer products. The last time Congress gave a President fast track powers was in the early 1990s. What we got in return was the flawed North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Under NAFTA, business interests got extensive protections, but provisions to safeguard workers' rights and the environment have proven to be unenforceable.

The results have been disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of once good-paying jobs have been lost, and hardworking families pushed to the edge as NAFTA encouraged U.S. companies to relocate in Mexico. These policies are not so much about "free trade" as about moving manufacturing facilities from the United States and Canada to where labor is cheaper and environmental standards unenforced.

Some argue that there has been a job boom under NAFTA. However, "NAFTA at Seven," a report from the Economic Policy Institute, written by analysts from the United States, Mexico, and Canada, reveals a continent-wide pattern of stagnant or declining worker incomes, lost job opportunities, increased insecurity, and rising inequality.

The trade deficit between the U.S. and its neighbors grew from $16.6 billion in 1993 to $62.8 billion in 2000. This growing deficit has led to the loss of an estimated 766,030 jobs in the United States since NAFTA's implementation. Corporate globalization has put downward pressure on workers wages. Employers have used their expanded freedom to move across borders as a tool in collective bargaining, and to stifle workers' attempts to organize unions.

As plant closings in Vermont at Johnson Controls, Stanley Works, Tensolite, and Ethan Allen demonstrate, these are not just empty threats. The Economic Policy Institute estimates the loss of 1,611 Vermont jobs between 1993 and 2000 under NAFTA. Ethan Allen workers will remind us that this number, and the associated human costs, are growing. Family wage paying jobs are becoming an endangered species, and more of us are stuck in dead end, sub-living wage jobs. Most of these companies were profitable, the workers were productive, and the jobs paid a wage on which people could raise a family. Yet, like so many other employers looking to fatten their bottom line, they moved production to places where workers enjoy few rights and toil for low wages and slim if any benefits.

In fact, for many Mexican workers and small farmers, NAFTA has only wreaked havoc. Average Mexican wages under the treaty have fallen while poverty is on the rise. Wages, benefits, and workers' rights are deliberately suppressed in the rapidly growing maquiladoras (foreign, mostly U.S.-owned, duty-free plants). As a result, migration from rural areas to shantytowns to the United States has risen.

The benefits of NAFTA have gone to corporations that have been granted the right to go before secret international tribunals to challenge a nation's own laws if those laws reduce their profits. That's exactly what the Metalclad Corporation did when it sued under NAFTA and won more than $16 million in compensation from the Mexican government when the company was blocked from building on land set aside for a local ecological preserve.

Nevertheless, President Bush and his allies on Capitol Hill are working to rush fast-track authority through Congress. The President wants fast track powers to negotiate a NAFTA-like Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty that would govern trade throughout virtually all of North and South America. The draft FTAA includes an expansion of the most anti-democratic features of NAFTA. Its provisions will enable corporations to sue national, state, county and municipal governments for the removal of regulations or laws designed to protect the environment, public health, and labor conditions if they reduce the ability of the corporation to maximize profits. The end result could leave Vermont with diminished clean water, billboards everywhere, many of our environmental laws vacated, and fewer livable wage jobs. For example, the New England Dairy Compact, which now helps protect small dairy farms, could be declared an unlawful restraint of trade and cease to exist.

We need to re-open the debate on NAFTA instead of expanding it to the rest of the hemisphere. We need to pursue approaches to economic integration that work for the continent's working people. We need strong, enforceable environmental standards and workers' rights in the core provisions of any agreement. A new trade agreement should include: guarantees of worker rights at the work place, guarantees that all workers in FTAA countries receive a living wage, an environmental code of conduct, and debt relief for the world's poorest countries. Any agreement should strive to harmonize upward the economic, social, and environmental well being of all peoples living in the Western Hemisphere.

But under the leading fast track bill in Congress, neither workers' rights nor environmental protections are mentioned once. Nor does the measure acknowledge the many concerns that have been raised by community, labor, and religious groups.

For trade policies to work for working families, the President must get off the fast track and onto the right track. The right track requires that trade treaties prioritize citizens' interests and have enforceable measures for workers' rights and the environment. Trade agreements must set out responsibilities for investors, not just rights. They must not allow investors to challenge domestic laws. They must not require privatization or deregulation of government services or prevent our government from promoting policies to strengthen manufacturing or other key economic sectors.

Fast Track gives the President too much power. Congress should meet its responsibility to carefully consider trade deals, and make sure they are in the best interest of working people and the environment -- not just big corporations.