Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 18, 2013)
Inside MEETING NOTICES See Page 4 Volume 114 Number 2 January 18, 2013 Portland The time is now to reform filibuster rules in U.S. Senate Filibuster reform will be first thing on the docket when the U.S. Senate convenes on Jan. 22. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, along with Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Tom Harkin of Iowa, are leading the charge for reform. They told reporters during a briefing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 3 that they have the votes needed to make change happen. There are 55 Democrats in the Sen- ate, and Udall says he has 51 votes. Under the U.S. Constitution, a ma- jority of each house have the power to change its rules on the first day of the legislative session by a simple majority vote. The Senate convened the first ses- sion of the 113th Congress on Jan. 3 — and the three Democratic senators in- troduced SR 4. Here’s what it would do: • Clear the path to debate — Those objecting to legislation would only have one opportunity to filibuster legislation. Specifically, the ability to bring up a bill for simple debate (the motion to proceed) would not be sub- jected to a filibuster. • Restore the “talking filibuster” — Those wishing to filibuster legisla- tion must actually hold the floor and be required to actually debate the legisla- tion. It would end “silent” filibusters U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon is leading the charge for filibuster reform that would require senators to actually stand and speak on the floor if they are opposed to a piece of legislation or presidential appointment. The Senate will debate the issue Jan. 22. where one senator quietly objects and is not required to take the Senate floor. • Put filibuster supporters on record — 41 senators would have to affirmatively vote to continue debate, rather than forcing 60 senators to vote to end debate. • Expedite nominations — The process for approving nominations would be streamlined, shortening the amount of time required for debate once a nomination is brought to the Senate floor. Historically, the filibuster was in- tended to protect the minority party’s interests on extraordinary issues, and it was rarely invoked. But in today’s con- tentious political climate the filibuster has been used in record numbers (nearly 400 times in the 112th Con- gress) to block votes and debate, and the requirement for 60 votes to end a filibuster has proved virtually insur- mountable. For example, much of the legislation organized labor has fought for to restore collective bargaining rights and to create jobs — from the Employee Free Choice Act, to the Bring Jobs Home Act, the American Jobs Act, and many more — never re- ceived a Senate floor vote because of the filibuster threat, even though the legislation had majority support from senators. For these reasons, SR 4 is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and some 50 progres- sive groups — in a coalition called Fix the Senate Now. Action on the resolution was post- poned, however, because another fili- buster reform proposal was introduced — this one by Sens. John McCain (R- Ariz.), and Carl Levin (D-Mich.). It is backed by six other senators. Merkley said the counterproposal “does nothing to take on the secret, silent filibuster that is haunting this body.” The AFL-CIO and Fix the Senate Now say the alternative proposal is a recipe for continued gridlock. “It lacks transparency and accountability; it al- lows continued minority veto of all leg- islative matters; it continues to provide multiple chances to filibuster legisla- tion; and it keeps the obstructionist sta- tus quo for many executive branch and judicial nominees. “We will be pressing Sen. Reid [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada] to stand firm in support of real reform, including the ‘talking fili- buster,’ ” the coalition said in a press release. Sen. Reid employed a parliamen- tary procedure that allowed him to hold off making any rule changes on open- ing day. Under the procedure (he called for a recess at the close of the first day’s proceedings), each day is still considered as the “first day” of the new Congress, under which the Senate can change its rules by a simple majority. While in “recess” Reid is meeting with Minority Leader Mitch Mc- (Turn to Page 5) Transit Union Local 757-TriMet conflict accelerates By DON McINTOSH Associate Editor Every time you think the relationship can’t get any worse between TriMet and Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Lo- cal 757, it does. Oregon’s largest transit agency and the union that represents 2,000 of its workers and 1,200 retirees have been in continuous combat since 2009 — in the workplace, in the Ore- gon Legislature, in the legal arena, and in the court of public opinion. The issues of contention range from petty and personal to serious and sub- stantive: Management has stripped away perks that had been added over the years — from the profits from the em- ployee break room vending machines which paid for an annual picnic, to the right of union staff to purchase the agency’s group life insurance at their own expense. TriMet gave bus supervi- sors a quota of high-risk fare enforce- ment confrontations, without the train- ing or backup that fare inspectors receive. But by far the biggest source of contention has been TriMet’s effort to shift health insurance costs to workers. TriMet bus and train operators and mechanics earn wages that top out at about $22 an hour, plus pension and health benefits. (Until 2009, TriMet workers had fully-paid insurance for themselves and their families, with min- imal co-pays.) But in 2009, TriMet in- sisted on reducing benefits to a “90/10” plan, in which employees pay 10 per- cent of health care costs. When the union didn’t agree, the two sides reached impasse in bargaining for a new contract, which led to binding arbitra- tion. In the end, the arbitrator picked TriMet’s proposal. But the union is challenging the arbitrator’s decision. Administrative law judge Wendy Greenwald heard arguments from both sides Jan. 8 and 9. Under an expedited process, her conclusions will go directly to the three-member Oregon Employ- ment Relations Board (ERB), which ad- judicates public-sector labor disputes in Oregon. But TriMet isn’t stopping there. In December, the agency announced that it will push in the next round of bar- gaining for an 80/20 plan, in which em- ployees pay 20 percent of health costs. Both sides are gearing up for battle on multiple fronts. To fund their fight, Local 757 members at TriMet voted to approve a special dues assessment be- ginning this month that will raise up- wards of $40,000 a month. It may seem strange, but when the Oregon Legislature meets next month, TriMet plans to ask legislators to make it legal again for transit workers to strike. In Oregon, most public employ- ees have the right to strike, but some, like police and firefighters, are barred from striking; their contracts are settled by binding arbitration when labor and management can’t agree. In 2007, law- makers added transit workers to the cat- egory of barred-from-striking employ- ees, at Local 757’s request. The union expected that members would achieve better results by having a neutral arbi- trator pick the most reasonable of the two proposals. Washington has a similar provision for transit workers. But in practice, binding arbitration was much messier than expected. TriMet didn’t bargain seriously before it declared impasse, ERB ruled: Man- agement waited until the very end to de- tail its most important proposals, in- cluding its wage offer, and then sent to arbitrator David Gaba a “final offer” that it had never shown the union in ac- tual bargaining. Not once but twice, ERB ordered TriMet to play fair and submit a proper final offer to the arbi- trator. The legal back-and-forth took so long that the arbitrator’s decision was is- sued 32 months into the 36-month con- tract. And the arbitrator’s decision, which might have been expected to be final, opened up a new can of worms. Gaba felt that the employer’s health care costs were too high to justify picking ATU’s offer. But he also identified items in TriMet’s offer that could be illegal and possibly unenforceable, including the need to bill workers for years of retroac- tive health premiums — and provisions that broke promises to retirees. Local 757 urged members not to co- operate with attempts to collect the back premiums, and TriMet called that ille- gal in charges that were added to the union’s appeal of the arbitrator’s ruling, creating the consolidated case that Greenwald heard. Since the dispute began, ERB has re- peatedly ruled that TriMet violated the law, even ordering TriMet to pay union attorney fees on two occasions. Meanwhile, the arbitrator-imposed contract has now expired, but bargain- ing over a new agreement has yet to be- gin. Local 757 says it wants bargaining (Turn to Page 7)
