originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
In November, unions lost big in Michigan when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they're facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.
Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state. According to the United Auto Workers website, the union will rally Thursday in Lansing to spook lawmakers out of going through with the bill.
Target No. 1 is Governor Rick Snyder, who held a press conference on Tuesday to say that right to work was on the agenda for "thoughtful discussion." That's a shift for Mr. Snyder, who has tiptoed around the topic since he was elected, saying it wasn't a battle he was looking for. Unions took his soft touch as a sign of weakness and pushed Proposal 2, which would have given them a virtual veto over all union-related legislation.
Meanwhile, the economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.
According to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the state has a record number of businesses choosing to expand or set up in the state, including Amazon and Toyota. The 220 companies will create some 21,000 new jobs and invest $3.6 billion. The growth has come despite a decrease in the average tax incentives offered by the state to $8,900 from around $37,000 in previous years.
Republicans hold a 26-12 majority in the Michigan Senate and a 64-46 majority in the state House. According to a recent poll by Mitchell Research & Communications for a right-to-work advocacy group, 51% of Michiganders support a right-to-work law while 41% are opposed.
That's important because if a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits.
The AFL-CIO has said that politicians who oppose Big Labor would pay a steep political price, but it's not turning out that way. In Indiana, Republicans picked up nine seats after the right-to-work law passed and lawmakers who made the law a key part of their agenda won by wide margins. If that's the price they pay, Michigan's politicians should be all in.
Showing posts with label labor unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor unions. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Union Workers Walk Out on Hostess
story first appeared on reuters.com
Enough is enough, say bakery workers at Hostess Brands Inc.
After several years of costly concessions, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) authorized a walk-out earlier this month after Hostess received bankruptcy court approval to implement a wage cut that was not included in its contract.
With operations stalled, the company that makes Twinkies and other famous U.S. brands said last week that liquidating its business was the best way to preserve its dwindling cash. It won court approval on Wednesday to start winding down in a process expected to claim 15,000 jobs immediately and over 3,000 more after about four months.
Interviews with more than a dozen workers showed there was little sign of regret from employees who voted for the strike. They said they would rather lose their jobs than put up with lower wages and poorer benefits.
Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.
With 18,500 workers, Hostess has 12 different unions including the BCTGM, which has about 5,600 members on the bread and snack item production lines, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents about 7,500 route sales representatives, drivers and other employees.
Unlike some non-unionized rivals, the maker of Wonder Bread and Drake's cakes had to navigate more than 300 labor contracts, with terms that often strained efficiency and competitiveness, Hostess officials have said. In some extreme cases, contract provisions required different products to be delivered on different trucks even when headed to the same place.
Aside from those so-called onerous labor contracts, Hostess has grappled for some time with rising ingredient costs and a growing health consciousness that has made its sugary cakes less popular. It filed for bankruptcy in January, only three years after emerging from a prior bankruptcy.
Lance Ignon, speaking on behalf of Hostess, said the company recognized how difficult the past few years had been for workers and wished it did not have to ask them for more givebacks.
"But the reality was that the company could not survive without those concessions," Ignon said.
Hostess workers are now scrambling to figure out when their health insurance runs out -- or if it already has -- and where and how to apply for job retraining and unemployment benefits.
Following a summer and autumn spent in labor negotiations trying to find a common path to reorganization, Hostess' management gained concessions from some unions, including the Teamsters.
The fear of thousands of job losses, for its own members and other unions, led the Teamsters to plead with the BCTGM to hold a secret ballot to determine if bakery workers really wanted to continue with the strike, even with the threat of closure.
Teamsters officials complained that bakery union leaders did not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process, and complained that the BCTGM called for its strike on November 9 without first notifying the Teamsters.
They said that, unlike the bakery union, the Teamsters voted to "protect all jobs at Hostess." Teamsters General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall said Wednesday's court approval for liquidation marked a sad day for thousands of families affected by the closing of this company.
Bakery union President Frank Hurt has said that any labor agreements would only be temporary as Hostess was doomed anyway. The union said new owners were needed to get Hostess back on track and the only way they would return to work was if Hostess rescinded its wage and benefit cuts.
Hurt was not immediately available to comment on Wednesday but the union said in a court filing its sole objective was to leave Hostess with "a real, rather than an illusory or theoretical, likelihood of establishing a stable business with secure jobs."
On Wednesday, Hostess' lawyer Heather Lennox said the company had received a "flood of inquiries" from potential buyers for several brands that could be sold at auction, and expects initial bidders within a few weeks.
Enough is enough, say bakery workers at Hostess Brands Inc.
After several years of costly concessions, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) authorized a walk-out earlier this month after Hostess received bankruptcy court approval to implement a wage cut that was not included in its contract.
With operations stalled, the company that makes Twinkies and other famous U.S. brands said last week that liquidating its business was the best way to preserve its dwindling cash. It won court approval on Wednesday to start winding down in a process expected to claim 15,000 jobs immediately and over 3,000 more after about four months.
Interviews with more than a dozen workers showed there was little sign of regret from employees who voted for the strike. They said they would rather lose their jobs than put up with lower wages and poorer benefits.
Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.
With 18,500 workers, Hostess has 12 different unions including the BCTGM, which has about 5,600 members on the bread and snack item production lines, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents about 7,500 route sales representatives, drivers and other employees.
Unlike some non-unionized rivals, the maker of Wonder Bread and Drake's cakes had to navigate more than 300 labor contracts, with terms that often strained efficiency and competitiveness, Hostess officials have said. In some extreme cases, contract provisions required different products to be delivered on different trucks even when headed to the same place.
Aside from those so-called onerous labor contracts, Hostess has grappled for some time with rising ingredient costs and a growing health consciousness that has made its sugary cakes less popular. It filed for bankruptcy in January, only three years after emerging from a prior bankruptcy.
Lance Ignon, speaking on behalf of Hostess, said the company recognized how difficult the past few years had been for workers and wished it did not have to ask them for more givebacks.
"But the reality was that the company could not survive without those concessions," Ignon said.
FRUSTRATIONS, COMPLAINTS
Workers had a laundry list of frustrations, from rising healthcare costs to decreased wages and delayed pension benefits. They even cited a $10-per-week per worker charge they said Hostess claimed was needed to boost company capital.Hostess workers are now scrambling to figure out when their health insurance runs out -- or if it already has -- and where and how to apply for job retraining and unemployment benefits.
Following a summer and autumn spent in labor negotiations trying to find a common path to reorganization, Hostess' management gained concessions from some unions, including the Teamsters.
The fear of thousands of job losses, for its own members and other unions, led the Teamsters to plead with the BCTGM to hold a secret ballot to determine if bakery workers really wanted to continue with the strike, even with the threat of closure.
Teamsters officials complained that bakery union leaders did not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process, and complained that the BCTGM called for its strike on November 9 without first notifying the Teamsters.
They said that, unlike the bakery union, the Teamsters voted to "protect all jobs at Hostess." Teamsters General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall said Wednesday's court approval for liquidation marked a sad day for thousands of families affected by the closing of this company.
Bakery union President Frank Hurt has said that any labor agreements would only be temporary as Hostess was doomed anyway. The union said new owners were needed to get Hostess back on track and the only way they would return to work was if Hostess rescinded its wage and benefit cuts.
Hurt was not immediately available to comment on Wednesday but the union said in a court filing its sole objective was to leave Hostess with "a real, rather than an illusory or theoretical, likelihood of establishing a stable business with secure jobs."
On Wednesday, Hostess' lawyer Heather Lennox said the company had received a "flood of inquiries" from potential buyers for several brands that could be sold at auction, and expects initial bidders within a few weeks.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Wisconsin Governor Underfire for Reform
Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
Wisconsin's recall election is on, pitting the Governor against the Milwaukee Mayor. If the governor is voted out of office on June 5, what other politician will be willing to step forward to address America's entitlement challenges?
The governor's record is well known: He limited collective bargaining for government labor unions and trimmed health-insurance and pension benefits, bringing them more in line with private business. Organized labor thinks these reforms should be the end of his career.
They argue, first, that public workers just wanted to "have a voice" in their employment. But public-school teachers are more than welcome to participate in school-board meetings or sit down with principals to discuss how to achieve better results. What unions really want is legal standing to sue employers and prevent any changes—in wages, hours or other conditions of employment—unwanted by their members. Their call to continue combative litigation hardly promotes the kind of statewide unity that they have called for.
Public employers deal with thousands of grievances that result in discussion, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. In 2010, the last full year before the reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issued 129 decisions in cases that went to a full hearing. That is a lot of litigation.
Unions frequently abuse their standing to sue. In 2009, during the height of the recession, many government agencies furloughed employees to save taxpayer money. In Milwaukee County, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees successfully sued to prevent this—and won $6 million in back pay and interest, at a time when every local government was drowning in red ink.
In 2006, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) sued the Cedarburg School District for terminating a teacher who had viewed pornography on his school computer. An arbitrator initially reinstated the teacher and awarded back pay. Only after much time and expense did the Wisconsin Court of Appeal uphold the termination.
In the past year, WEAC again fought the termination of a teacher who had viewed and shared pornography on his school computer in the Middleton-Cross Plains School District. An arbitrator recently reinstated and awarded back pay of over $200,000 to that teacher. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the district spent over $300,000 in legal fees in its failed attempt to fire him.
In the Antigo School District, a principal has been criminally charged with selling drugs from his house to fellow teachers, among others. The district could drug-test these employees to ensure that students aren't exposed to teachers under the influence of illegal drugs, right? Sorry, drug testing is prohibited by collective bargaining and the union contract.
Why did Wisconsinites have to incur considerable costs in lost staff time and legal fees as unions sued local governments? Because, argue Democrats, the people we elect to serve on school boards and city councils can't be trusted to treat employees fairly. It matters little that these local officials can be voted out of office if they act inappropriately.
Public workers without collective-bargaining rights will hardly be subject to the whims of tyrannical bosses. There are ample protections for all employees—the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act and many more.
Employees have considerably more legal protection now than when Wisconsin first gave collective-bargaining rights to public unions in 1959. All employees have standing to sue in state and federal court if their rights are violated. If government agencies go too far, voters can vote out board members. Noticeably absent from the debate thus far are examples of a school district running roughshod over teachers.
Education is easily the most important social equalizer in our society, yet there is no evidence that Wisconsin's previous levels of retirement and health-care funding for teachers improved student performance. Many factors harm student performance—including that we don't fire our worst teachers and don't reward our best, thanks to union contracts that forbid merit-based compensation and block the dismissal of teachers except in rare circumstances.
Recalling the Governor and reinstating collective-bargaining rights would guarantee a tax hike to pay astronomical health and retirement benefits to union members. Local governments would have to continue fighting in front of arbitrators to exert any semblance of control over their workforce. And big labor would be able to exert more control over politicians and dictate reform on its terms—which is virtually no reform at all.
If politicians nationwide see the Wisconsin governor as a cautionary tale, what will happen on the inevitable day when we have to tell seniors that they must contribute more toward Medicare or wait until age 68 to receive Social Security? Will the AARP run those people out of office too?
This cycle of attempted reform followed by all-out warfare could continue until we are bankrupt. Had Wisconsin Democrats and unions been willing to support more modest reforms years ago, these changes wouldn't have been needed. But most politicians are unwilling to confront their friends and constituents. That habit will continue—or get worse—if Wisconsin's expensive and divisive recall campaign boots the reform governor from office.
Wisconsin's recall election is on, pitting the Governor against the Milwaukee Mayor. If the governor is voted out of office on June 5, what other politician will be willing to step forward to address America's entitlement challenges?
The governor's record is well known: He limited collective bargaining for government labor unions and trimmed health-insurance and pension benefits, bringing them more in line with private business. Organized labor thinks these reforms should be the end of his career.
They argue, first, that public workers just wanted to "have a voice" in their employment. But public-school teachers are more than welcome to participate in school-board meetings or sit down with principals to discuss how to achieve better results. What unions really want is legal standing to sue employers and prevent any changes—in wages, hours or other conditions of employment—unwanted by their members. Their call to continue combative litigation hardly promotes the kind of statewide unity that they have called for.
Public employers deal with thousands of grievances that result in discussion, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. In 2010, the last full year before the reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issued 129 decisions in cases that went to a full hearing. That is a lot of litigation.
Unions frequently abuse their standing to sue. In 2009, during the height of the recession, many government agencies furloughed employees to save taxpayer money. In Milwaukee County, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees successfully sued to prevent this—and won $6 million in back pay and interest, at a time when every local government was drowning in red ink.
In 2006, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) sued the Cedarburg School District for terminating a teacher who had viewed pornography on his school computer. An arbitrator initially reinstated the teacher and awarded back pay. Only after much time and expense did the Wisconsin Court of Appeal uphold the termination.
In the past year, WEAC again fought the termination of a teacher who had viewed and shared pornography on his school computer in the Middleton-Cross Plains School District. An arbitrator recently reinstated and awarded back pay of over $200,000 to that teacher. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the district spent over $300,000 in legal fees in its failed attempt to fire him.
In the Antigo School District, a principal has been criminally charged with selling drugs from his house to fellow teachers, among others. The district could drug-test these employees to ensure that students aren't exposed to teachers under the influence of illegal drugs, right? Sorry, drug testing is prohibited by collective bargaining and the union contract.
Why did Wisconsinites have to incur considerable costs in lost staff time and legal fees as unions sued local governments? Because, argue Democrats, the people we elect to serve on school boards and city councils can't be trusted to treat employees fairly. It matters little that these local officials can be voted out of office if they act inappropriately.
Public workers without collective-bargaining rights will hardly be subject to the whims of tyrannical bosses. There are ample protections for all employees—the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act and many more.
Employees have considerably more legal protection now than when Wisconsin first gave collective-bargaining rights to public unions in 1959. All employees have standing to sue in state and federal court if their rights are violated. If government agencies go too far, voters can vote out board members. Noticeably absent from the debate thus far are examples of a school district running roughshod over teachers.
Education is easily the most important social equalizer in our society, yet there is no evidence that Wisconsin's previous levels of retirement and health-care funding for teachers improved student performance. Many factors harm student performance—including that we don't fire our worst teachers and don't reward our best, thanks to union contracts that forbid merit-based compensation and block the dismissal of teachers except in rare circumstances.
Recalling the Governor and reinstating collective-bargaining rights would guarantee a tax hike to pay astronomical health and retirement benefits to union members. Local governments would have to continue fighting in front of arbitrators to exert any semblance of control over their workforce. And big labor would be able to exert more control over politicians and dictate reform on its terms—which is virtually no reform at all.
If politicians nationwide see the Wisconsin governor as a cautionary tale, what will happen on the inevitable day when we have to tell seniors that they must contribute more toward Medicare or wait until age 68 to receive Social Security? Will the AARP run those people out of office too?
This cycle of attempted reform followed by all-out warfare could continue until we are bankrupt. Had Wisconsin Democrats and unions been willing to support more modest reforms years ago, these changes wouldn't have been needed. But most politicians are unwilling to confront their friends and constituents. That habit will continue—or get worse—if Wisconsin's expensive and divisive recall campaign boots the reform governor from office.
For more Law News,
visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News
Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit
the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the
Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics
News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News,
visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising
News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News,
visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right
blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
