Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Here We Come, Raiding or Not | Main | Teamsters, Carpenters Get The Boot »
August 02, 2005
Keeping The Heat On The CAFTA 15
Well, I've decided to make the CAFTA 15 a regular project of this blog for as long as it takes. Nothing has gotten people more riled up--for good reason. So, I've got a few ideas up my sleeve which I'll talk about in the next few days.
First off, let's start gathering as much info as possible about the CAFTA 15--in one comment, JC mentioned that the Northeastern Illinois Fed has a scheduled fundraiser for Melissa Bean next month. Seems to me there could be enough people to start phoning the Fed there and get it to cancel the fundraiser--let's look into that.
But, beyond that, those of you spread around the country, check out and send info on the CAFTA 15--supporters, events, what labor money they've gotten, potential candidates (not wackos) who might run against them in a primary. Shovel the info over to here--if there is no active post on it, just e-mail it to me at: jtasini [at sign] workinglife.org
Alert: if you are out there and have info you want to share but feel the need to keep the source (you or someone else) confidential, I'll do so.
And spread this out to people on your e-mail lists who might have info that would be useful.
I'll start the sharing: a lot of us have been agitating against Gregory Meeks and Edolphus Towns here in NY. Sunday there will be a press conference to criticize both of them; it's scheduled to be attended by the head of the NY Central Labor Council, CWA, SEIU, Teamsters, RWDSU/UFCW, UAW, UNITE HERE and the Working Families Party. Here's one encouraging example that the recent internal labor movement debate isn't blinding people to the ultimate prize since unions in both camps are taking part. That's terrific. And I've already talked to people about two solid potential primary opponents to Towns; Meeks might be a tougher one to take on because of his district.
As a reminder, the CAFTA 15 are: Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District);
Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District);
Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District);
Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District);
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District); William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District);
Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District);
Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District);
Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District); Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District);
Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District);
Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District);
Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District); John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District);
and Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District).
August 2, 2005 in Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83459cf2069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keeping The Heat On The CAFTA 15:
» Labor, Politics and Republicans, Oh My! from Labor Blog
Reprinted from Confined Space. It seemed odd at first that eight months after the newly elected Governors of Missouri and Indiana took collective bargaining rights away from public employees, the Wall St. Journal is getting around to reporting it, alon... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2005 9:16:31 AM
» Labor, Politics and Republicans, Oh My! from Labor Blog
Reprinted from Confined Space. It seemed odd at first that eight months after the newly elected Governors of Missouri and Indiana took collective bargaining rights away from public employees, the Wall St. Journal is getting around to reporting it, alon... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2005 9:20:22 AM
» Labor, Politics and Republicans, Oh My! from Labor Blog
Reprinted from Confined Space. It seemed odd at first that eight months after the newly elected Governors of Missouri and Indiana took collective bargaining rights away from public employees, the Wall St. Journal is getting around to reporting it, alon... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2005 9:22:23 AM
Comments
From a recent profile of Grover Norquist in The New Yorker:
Another member of Norquist's staff, Scott LaGanga, filled him in on recent developments in Montana, Indiana, and North Carolina. Norquist said that the biggest challenge was Virginia, where nineteen Republican legislators who supported a tax increase are up for reelection this fall, and he is trying to defeat some of them in the Republican primary. "We only neeed to win one or two races to send a message," he said. "People say we need to win all of them, but that's not right."Norquist doesn't hesitate to attack fellow-Republicans. "When you have a brand like Coca Cola, and you find a rat head in the bottle, you create an outcry," he told me. "Republicans who raise taxes are rat heads in Coca Cola bottles. They endanger the brand."
The same goes for Dems who are bad on trade.
During the election, people kept asking me how all the people in the manufacturing Mid-West that had been put out of work could support Bush given his dismal record on job creation. "They aren't dumb, they have a memory. It was Bill Clinton that gave them NAFTA. It's been 40 years since the Dems did anything for working people. Why shouldn't they support Bush?" was always my answer.
As a Dem party precinct captain in Portland, OR I won't be helping Ron Wyden anytime soon and that goes for moving any Dem slate lit with his name on it.
Posted by: Marc Brazeau | Aug 2, 2005 3:38:19 PM
Thak any one of the big boys will take THIS to court?
Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour
NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers
It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.
So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..." While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.
On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardsmark's fraternization rule was lawful.1 The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section 7. But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else. She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."
Growing Workforce, Shrinking Protection
Number of U.S. workers for every employee of the NLRB:
In 1980: 30,1762
In 2003: 69,4073
While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different. Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.
Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights? And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?
America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.
Posted by: Jan | Aug 2, 2005 4:51:11 PM
darlene mealy is a twu member and community activist currently running for city council in ed towns' district. she hasnt generated too much excitement yet, but council seats rarely garner too much press. on top of which she has taken on the unenviable task of challenging one of the city's more succesful political dynasties. but theres still plenty of time till november. and even more time till november '06. look out for mealy. she has just the bio/resume. the question is can she make people decide to throw the bums out.
Posted by: dan | Aug 3, 2005 2:56:26 AM
