Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (July 1, 2011)
July 1, 2011_nWLP 6/28/11 10:10 AM Page 11 Oregonian newspaper attacks state senator for (gasp!) standing up for workers By SCOTT MOORE On June 18, the Oregonian editorial board blasted State Sen. Richard De- vlin (D-Tualatin) for daring to stand up for the rights of workers to organize. What “crime” did Sen. Devlin commit to cause such a tongue-lashing? He sent out a letter reminding agencies and service providers to not spend public funds to discuss the pros or cons of a unionizing effort by Service Employ- ees International Union Local 503. “[T]he good senator has no business throwing his weight around in the mid- dle of a union organizing drive,” the ed- itorial clucked. The opinion piece followed a front page article on the same issue, which was dressed up as a damning exposé. Here’s the news article headline, which was printed in large bold font on Page One above the fold: “Lawmaker ac- cused of helping out union drive.” Every day, politicians go to work trying to figure out how to give more money to the banks, insurance compa- nies, and big oil. They hand out tax breaks to move jobs overseas. And they try to weaken protections for the mid- dle class. So when lawmakers like De- vlin stand up to balance the scales in fa- vor of workers, we should applaud them and hope others will follow. But there’s a blatant double standard at the state’s largest newspaper that should be alarming to every Oregonian. While the Oregonian reserved its front page for this hit piece on Devlin, here are the stories from this legislative ses- sion that the paper buried or ignored entirely: • Republican Co-Speaker Bruce Hanna killing the ban on BPA — a dangerous chemical l— in children’s products. Why is Hanna on the side of poisoning children? He’s the president of the Roseburg Coca-Cola Bottling Company, and Coca-Cola is one of the nation’s largest proponents for the use of BPA. • Rep. Matt Wingard, the Republi- can Co-Chair of the House Education Committee, cashing personal checks from Connections Academy, a for- profit corporation that runs online char- ter schools. Wingard spent most of his time on the committee pushing for bills Corporate profits soar 81 percent, but few jobs created By TULA CONNELL WASHINGTON, D.C. — Profits of the 500 largest U.S. corporations soared 81 percent ($318 billion), the third largest percentage gain in list history, Fortune magazine reported. Walmart holds the number one spot for the second year in a row. Exxon Mo- bil leads profits with $30 billion, for the eighth year in row. The stunning leap in profits is so ex- cessive even Fortune writers are writhing in their leather chairs: “We’ve rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans. The prof- its derived partly from productivity gains, including workforce reductions. And many 500 companies are growing faster overseas than in the U.S.” So what are Wall Street CEOs do- ing? Screaming for more tax breaks. Listen to them holler about how the United States has one of the highest cor- porate tax rates in the world. And then read on to see why these corporations actually pay less — if anything — in corporate taxes than their counterparts in other nations. “By taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other coun- tries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home,” the New York Times reported. A Government Accountability Of- fice study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied, the Times noted. As the AFL-CIO Executive Pay- Watch site points out, U.S. corporations held a record $1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good middle-class jobs. Cor- porate CEOs are literally hoarding their company’s cash — except when it comes to their own paychecks. Something to think about, with more than 25 million still be unemployed or underemployed. (Editor’s Note: Tula Connell writes for the AFL-CIO NOW news blog.) that would expand online charter schools, diverting more taxpayer dol- lars to his employer in what most sane people would agree is a stunning con- flict of interest. • Republican State Sen. Chris Telfer pushing a bill that would specifically benefit a cigar shop owned by her busi- ness partner by exempting it from in- door smoking laws. Unfortunately, this has become par for the course for the Oregonian since it was taken over by N. Christian Ander- son III, the libertarian former publisher of the Orange County Register. Anderson’s anti-union animosity is well-documented. When the pressroom at the OC Register attempted to union- ize, Anderson brought in one of the na- tion’s most notorious union-busting O PEN F ORUM firms to run an intimidation campaign against the workers. Among the tactics allegedly em- ployed in the union-busting effort: physical assault, vandalized cars, mandatory anti-union meetings, and threats of termination and pay cuts. A few months later, Anderson fired 41 pressroom workers, ensuring that they couldn’t vote to unionize. Talk about “throwing his weight around in the middle of a union organ- izing drive.” (Editor’s Note: Scott Moore is com- munications director for Our Oregon, a non-profit, progressive coalition working for social and economic jus- tice.) Buy union-made Franz Bread, but not at Walmart To The Editor: Bakers Local 114 was astounded by the sudden advertising blitz in which Franz Family Bakeries is endorsing Walmart. We all know the devastation Walmart has wreacked upon the lives of workers and communities around the nation, and the destruction Walmart has brought to manufacturing jobs through- out the United States. Our Bakers Local 114 does not sup- port Walmart and opposes all efforts of the Walmart expansion into the north- west. Our union bakers do produce the highest quality breads at Franz and our other union bakeries (Oroweat, Kroger Clackamas Bakery, Safeway Clacka- mas Bakery), but we have no control over where our good products are sold. We do appreciate that we, the work- ers, can successfully negotiate with Franz Family Bakeries to provide good family wage and benefit jobs, and we recognize Franz Family Bakeries as a good union employer. But we also say: NO to Walmart! Terry W. Lansing Secretary Treasurer Bakers Local 114 Portland ‘Labor law still matters,’ NLRB chairwoman says By BARB KUCERA While collective bargaining is under attack in many parts of the country, it re- mains one of the few effective ways to preserve the American middle class, the chairwoman of the National Labor Re- lations Board (NLRB) said. The NLRB administers federal law safeguarding the rights of private sector workers to organize unions and bargain contracts. Wilma Liebman, with nearly 14 years on the Board, is one of its longest serving members. President Obama named her chairwoman in 2009. Liebman spoke earlier this year at the University of Minnesota Law School, where she discussed the history and role of the NLRB. Noting the turmoil that has erupted from Wisconsin to New Hampshire over the question of worker rights, she wished the debate “were less rancorous,” but added, “It has brought [collective bargaining] back into the public eye, the public discourse.” While hundreds of thousands have JULY 1, 2011 mobilized for rallies and other events sparked by the current debate, the con- flict over worker rights is nothing new, Liebman said. The NLRB is no stranger to contro- versy. The law is the product of fierce battles, some of them quite bloody. In 1935, when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act and cre- ated the NLRB, most workers had no le- gal right to a voice on the job. During the worst economic depression in U.S. history, millions marched in the streets, occupied factories and some died in the struggle to win collective bargaining rights. It’s worth remembering why Con- gress did what it did at that time. The Act was seen as a means of restoring the country to economic prosperity by restoring the purchasing power of wage- earners. The law really worked for the first few decades. Millions of people achieved a middle-class way of life through collective bargaining in major industries. Workers’ ability to achieve gains be- gan to unravel, however, first through Congressional action and later through economic change. In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, weakening some of the labor protections contained in the NLRA. And in recent decades, the growth of a global economy, overseas competition, new technology and deregulation have created new pressures on both manage- ment and labor, leading to major drops in union membership and ramping up employer opposition to unions. Today, many types of workers, such as independent contractors, now fall out- side the protections offered under fed- eral labor law. It’s fair to say the law did not keep up with all these changes. Despite efforts “to reinvigorate the law” in the 1970s and more recently through the Employee Free Choice Act, NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS it has not been amended since Taft-Hart- ley. Each attempt gets bogged down in partisan and ideological division. At times, the five-member NLRB has been nearly immobilized as ap- pointments were held up in Congress or left unfilled. For 27 months during the Bush Administration, Liebman and one other board member issued rulings and tried to carry on normal business, de- spite three vacancies. The U.S. Supreme Court later decided they did not have the authority to act, and the board — now with four members — has to revisit many of those decisions. Even though the National Labor Re- lations Act states it is national policy to encourage the practice of collective bar- gaining, “I don’t think there is really a consensus of what the statute is all about,” Liebman said. “There are still people in the business and legal com- munity who never accepted the legiti- macy of this law in the first place.” In recent decades, many NLRB and related court decisions have focused on individual — as opposed to collective — rights, she said. Despite being told that labor law is “dead, dying, ossified, neutered,” Lieb- man holds out hope. “My answer to it all is, ‘I’m not dead yet.’ ” She said the board is making modest gains in keeping the law “relevant and dynamic” by issuing a new rule requir- ing all employers to post worker rights notices in the workplace — something never mandated before — and by mak- ing use of tools such as injunctions to prevent the most serious abuses. “I think that labor law still matters very much in this country. The rights contained in this statute are enduring values. They are now recognized around the world . . . [and are] critical to a fair economy,” Liebman said. (Editor’s Note: Barb Kucera is edi- tor of www.WorkdayMinnesota.org.) PAGE 11
