Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 6, 2017)
SERVING ORGANIZED LABOR IN OREGON AND SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON SINCE 1900 NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS VOLUME 118, NUMBER 1 PORTLAND, OREGON JANUARY 6, 2017 WORKERS RIGHTS Big Day for Billionaires Long day and long week? Double the pay Trump inauguration means a billionaire in the White House and cabinet spots for 5 more. Just after the election, national AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka pledged to work with Donald Trump to enact at least some of his agenda, like renegotiating NAFTA and reviving American manufacturing. Trump’s campaign proposals had come with so few details that you could imagine that was possible. But the weeks since then have dampened those hopes, as Trump announced plans to nominate one ultra- wealthy individual after an- other to his cabinet and advi- sory councils. We take a look Unions making spirits bright Labor unions helped bring smiles to the faces of 300 chil- dren at the 21st annual Presents from Partners holiday party. The event for kids of union families in need, plus families from Snowcap charities, Bethel Lutheran Youth Drop In Center, Right 2 Dream Too, Immigrant & Refugee Community Organiza- tion, and Portland Tenants United, was held Dec. 17 at Sheet Metal Workers Local 16 in Northeast Portland. It is sponsored by Labor’s Community Service Agency — with lots of help from the North- west Oregon Labor Council and its affiliated unions, United Way of Columbia Willamette, and union allies who stepped up more than ever this year. At the party each child re- ceived a Christmas stocking hand-sewn by a group of union volun- teers. Kids filled their stockings with items Turn to Page 12 at those nominees, and labor’s reaction to them, on Page 2. Now national and local la- bor and community groups are planning massive protests on inauguration week- end. The Oregon AFL-CIO is encour- aging affiliates to join with other labor unions for protest ac- tions, including the Portland event be- low. LABOR-LED INAUGURAL PROTEST IN PORTLAND Saturday, Jan. 21, 10-11:30 a.m. Shemanski Park, 1010 SW Park Ave. Rally followed by a march to Salmon Street Springs at Tom McCall Waterfront Park; there marchers will join with a much larger women’s march. Oregon factory workers may be owed time-and-a-half twice Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has changed how it interprets overtime laws — in a way that could fatten the paychecks of Oregon factory workers. The change follows a lawsuit filed by the non-profit Northwest Workers Justice Proj- ect (NWJP) on behalf of a group of workers at Portland Specialty Baking, which quashed a union campaign in early 2016. The suit says the bakery violated an Oregon law that requires over- time pay when workers “em- ployed in a mill, factory or man- ufacturing establishment” work more than 10 hours in a day. BOLI enforces that law as well as a separate law that requires overtime pay for all hourly workers if they work more than 40 hours a week. Before the lawsuit, BOLI’s advice to em- ployers was that they had to pay the greater of the two overtime pay amounts, but not both. But NWJP attorney Corinna Spencer-Scheurich says that ad- vice was wrong. Suppose an Oregon factory worker put in three 12-hour shifts and one six-hour shift in a week, totaling 42 hours. That’s six hours of daily overtime and two hours of weekly overtime. Under BOLI’s old interpreta- tion, the worker would have been paid at the overtime rate for six hours — the greater of the two. Under the new interpre- tation, the laws operate inde- pendently, so the worker must be paid eight hours at the time- and-a-half overtime rate. BOLI spokesperson Charlie Burr said NWJP’s lawsuit led BOLI to take another look at the way the laws operate, and the agency ended up agreeing with plaintiffs. “The two statutes enact dis- tinct overtime requirements and serve different purposes with re- spect to restrictions on hours worked by employees,” says an updated manual for BOLI com- pliance agents. The change applies to an es- timated 187,477 manufacturing workers in Oregon. No trial date has been set yet in the bakery lawsuit. The two sides are still submitting prelim- inary legal arguments. PORTLAND To counter big money, City Council votes for public campaign finance Starting in 2020, Portland’s new system will match small donors so candidates can focus on regular voters, not big donors Portlanders are about to find out what a City Council looks like when candidates don’t need to rely on big campaign contribu- tors. In a 3-2 vote Dec. 14, Port- land City Council approved a public campaign finance pro- gram. Starting in 2020, the City will provide a six-to-one match for small contributions of up to $50 — for candidates for mayor and City Council who agree to certain limits on campaign con- tributions. City Council candi- dates in the program could get up to $144,000 in public funds for the primary and $216,000 for the general election — if they agree to accept no more than $250 from any individual, and to limit total contributions to $250,000 in the primary and $300,000 in the general elec- tion. The figures are about dou- ble that for mayoral candidates. The ordinance limits the pro- gram to 0.2 percent of the City’s General Fund — about $1.2 million a year. The program was modeled on similar programs in New York City and Los Angeles, and states such as Connecticut, Arizona, and Maine. Portland was the fourth jurisdiction to pass some kind of public campaign financ- ing in 2016. The ordinance was sponsored by Commissioner Amanda Fritz, but she said the proposal was driven by a coalition of unions and non-profit groups. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, Communi- cations Workers of America Local 7901, Service Employees Oregon State Council, and Ore- gon Working Families Party were among the 31 groups in the coalition. Fritz was joined by outgoing Mayor Charlie Hales and outgo- ing Commissioner Steve Novick in voting for the ordinance. Commissioners Dan Saltzman and Nick Fish voted against it, arguing that it should go before voters for approval.
