January 2, 2008
  Volume 10, #1

Is This Email Illegal? Yikes!

Here at the Weekly Update, we like email as much as anyone else -- OK, maybe even more. And we like free speech rights, too. That’s why we’re disturbed by the recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that limits what workers can write to each other about, especially with regard to their freedom to belong to a union. From the New York Times:

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that employers have the right to prohibit workers from using the company’s e-mail system to send out union-related messages, a decision that could hamper communications between labor unions and their membership.

The ruling is a significant setback to the nation’s labor unions, which argued that e-mail systems have become a modern-day gathering place where employees should be able to communicate freely with co-workers to discuss work-related matters of mutual concern.

The ruling involved The Register-Guard, a newspaper in Eugene, Ore., and e-mail messages sent in 2000 by Suzi Prozanski, a newspaper employee who was president of the Newspaper Guild’s unit there. She sent three e-mail messages about marching in a town parade and urging employees to wear green to show support for the union in contract negotiations.

“Anyone with e-mail knows that this is how employees communicate with each other in today’s workplace,” said Jonathan Hiatt, general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “Outrageously in allowing employers to ban such communications for union purposes, the Bush labor board has again struck at the heart of what the nation’s labor laws were intended to protect -- the right of employees to discuss working conditions and other matters of mutual concern.”

We agree with the dissenters on the board when they said that allowing employers to pick and choose among the topics employees “would allow employees to solicit on behalf of virtually anything except a union.”

BlueOregon: New Year’s Resolutions for Gordon Smith

We enjoyed this piece from Kari Chisholm at BlueOregon:

It’s January 1st, and many of us have made resolutions for the coming year. I wonder what Gordon Smith resolved to do?

Will he resolve to campaign honestly this year, unlike he did in 2002?

Will he stop contradicting himself and bending the facts? (In the last six months, both of Oregon’s largest newspapers (the O and the R-G) have criticized Smith for trying to bamboozle Oregonians.)

Will he stop voting 90 percent of the time with President Bush?

Will he actually work to get our troops out of Iraq? We’re now more than one year after Smith said he would oppose the war. Yet, unlike Ron Wyden, Smith continues voting to keep troops in Iraq and prolong the Iraq War.

Of course, since it’s unlikely that Gordon Smith will actually do any of those things, what’s your New Year’s resolution? How will you work to make 2008 Gordon Smith’s last year in the U.S. Senate?

We like Kari’s post and encourage our friends and allies to read it at BlueOregon and add your own item to the list. How about support for the Employee Free Choice Act?

Despite Roadblocks, Workers Chose ‘Union Yes’ in 2007

The AFL-CIO blog this week culls the best union news from 2007, including the will of America’s workers who overcame incredible obstacles to join a union at work, including 60,000 child care workers in New York alone:

The Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) repeatedly twists and guts the laws that protect workers’ freedom to form unions. Many employers engage in unprecedented union-busting. But one thing no one can twist or bust is the perseverance and determination of workers to win a voice at work.

Read the full summary of organizing victories on the AFL-CIO blog. And stay tuned for another round of getting Congress to step up and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for workers to make their voice heard on whether or not they want to join a union.

AP: Mexican Farmers Protest as Trade Barriers Lifted Under NAFTA

Last year, Oregon AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain pointed out in the Weekly Update and at rallies that illegal immigration is fueled by bad trade laws that hurt Mexican families’ already low family income, forcing them to make difficult choices to survive. This message is gaining more and more visibility worldwide, as this week Mexican farmers protested on the border. From the Houston Chronicle:

Activists lifted a blockade at the U.S.-Mexico border on Wednesday, ending a 36-hour protest against the removal of Mexico’s last tariffs on U.S. and Canadian farm goods.

Mexico abolished its last protective tariffs on basic crops like corn, beans and sugar on Tuesday, under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Mexican farmers have complained they won’t be able to compete with U.S. farmers who can sell cheaper products because they receive government subsidies.

Mexico’s Roman Catholic Church has warned that the changes could spark an exodus to the U.S.

“It is clear that many farmers will have a difficult time competing in the domestic market, and that could cause a large number of farmers to leave their farms,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued on New Year’s Day.

Front pages of Mexican newspapers, meanwhile, were filled with predictions that the trade opening would hurt Mexican food production and cause conflict. ... In Mexico City, activists announced plans to march through the capital and hold a nationwide conference on Jan. 14 to plan further protests.

Fed-Ex Anti-Worker ‘Contractor Model’ Losing Ground

Bad news for FedEx may be good news for the men and women who deliver its packages. Long criticized for falsely classifying its drivers as contractors to avoid paying certain benefits and protections such as overtime -- as well as keeping workers from joining unions -- FedEx has recently been taken to task by several courts and by the Internal Revenue Service.

Just before Christmas, MarketWatch reported that the Internal Revenue Service has ordered FedEx ‘to pay back taxes and fines totaling $319 million for ground employees the firm misclassified as independent contractors. ...The company said that the IRS is investigating the status of contractors hired between 2004 and 2006. That probe could lead to further penalties, the company said.”

Drivers in more than two dozen states have filed lawsuits against FedEx as well. “FedEx requires contracted drivers to purchase or lease their trucks and pay for all operating expenses, including liability insurance, fuel, and maintenance,” said MarketWatch.

“FedEx appears to be losing momentum in its attempts to defend its contractor model as court decisions and IRS tax assessments highlight significant structural risk,” a J.P. Morgan analyst said when downgrading the company’s stock.

Massachusetts recently cited FedEx Ground for misclassifying 13 drivers and fined FedEx $190,000. The California Supreme Court recently refused to review a ruling that found single route drivers in that state to be misclassified. Until FedEx smartens up and hires its workforce at union wages, remember to ship union, with UPS and the U.S. Postal Service.

This Week in Union History

December 31, 1987
OSHA adopts a grain handling facilities standard to protect 155,000 workers at nearly 24,000 grain elevators from the risk of fire and explosion from highly combustible grain dust.

January 2, 2006
An underground explosion at Sago Mine in Tallmansville, W. Va., traps 12 miners and cuts power to the mine. Eleven men die, mostly by asphyxiation. The mine had been cited 273 times for safety violations over the prior 23 months.

January 5, 1914
Ford Motor Company raised wages from $2.40 for a 9-hour day to $5 for an 8 hour day in effort to keep the unions out.

Source: biglabor.com