The 2009 CWA Convention and Legislative-Political Conference adjourned last week, with several important resolutions. Guild rep and Vice President Vicki Di Paolo was good enough to share her take on what the conference means for working journalists facing the worst industry conditions in history, so here's a partial list of some of the issues CWA is tackling right now.
The subject matter is a little dry, but the information is critical to understanding how the Guild is working to help improve and preserve the lives and jobs of journalists in America.
United Labor
Because unity and solidarity are some of our guiding principles, CWA and other labor organizations like the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, and the NEA established a National Labor Coordinating Committee to work together and create a labor movement that maximizes the strength of its' members.
Employee Free Choice Act
Most of us realize that U.S. labor laws are no longer enforced as intended. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established rights for workers for the first time, and helped pave the way for the laws we take for granted today. But in the 70 years since its passage, the NLRA has been under constant attack by big business. In the last few years particularly labor laws have been interpreted vastly differently from those early days, and again the rights of workers are overlooked, unenforced, and disregarded by employers.
In an interview with Multinational Monitor magazine, David Bonior, Chair of American Rights at Work and former Michigan Congressman, says abuse of labor law by employers has become an "epidemic."
It is a huge problem. To give you some perspective on that: the International Labor Organization arm of the United Nations ranks all member countries based upon compliance with labor law, and the United States ranks in the bottom twentieth percentile. We are down there with Iran and with Afghanistan. We do not comply with our own labor law. As a result, we've seen the numbers of illegal firings and discriminations shoot up from five and six hundred in the 1960s to a few thousand in the 1970s now to epidemic proportions of 23,000 to 30,000 a year.
That's why CWA and so many others support the Employee Free Choice Act. Human Rights Watch says EFCA is absolutely necessary to "help remedy glaring deficiencies in current U.S. labor law that significantly impair the right of workers."
Despite what big business says, EFCA is not a way to sneak unions into a workplace, and it doesn't eliminate "secret ballot" elections. Instead it gives the decision over elections to the workers - not management, where it rests today. Currently, employers are legally entitled to force employees to "confirm" their decision, and endure harsh anti-union campaigns where employees are harassed, intimidated, and fired for supporting union representation. In some instances, employers have been able to force workers to vote more than six times before their decision was finally accepted! EFCA levels the playing field, and that's why big business has spent hundreds of millions of dollars fighting to maintain their stranglehold on employees.
Health Care Reform
With the support of President Barack Obama, CWA has joined the call for national health care reform. The high cost of health care is not only the leading cause of bankruptcy in America, but hurts our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Affordable health care is probably one of the biggest issues facing Americans today, and CWA is working hard to support passage of legislation that will ensure quality affordable health care is available to everyone. Coalitions like Health Care for America Now! stand at the forefront of this fight, and CWA is a proud member.
Trade Reform
The U.S. trade deficit continues to wreak havoc on our economy, and the effects travel far beyond the manufacturing sector. That's why CWA supports balanced trade agreements that will create genuine opportunity and make it harder for multinational corporations to move production overseas. The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act of 2009 calls for a comprehensive review of U.S. trade policy, with a priority on the interests of working families, farmers, the environment, and domestic manufacturers.
Shield law for journalists
Although most states have a shield law in place, there is still no federal protection for journalists.
Irwin Gratz, SPJ president, points out that without this legislation, protection for journalists remains an uncertain proposition.
Posner's findings have been echoed by several other judges in the past two years, leading to the increased likelihood that prosecutors would subpoena reporters. And they have. In the most notorious case to date, New York Times reporter Judy Miller has been jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena. So, we, and other journalism groups are turning to a practical solution that has worked in 31 other states: a shield law.
CWA recognizes the importance of ensuring that the media's ability to gather information is not compromised, and is a proud supporter of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009.
Media Antitrust
Although the media conglomerates might argue that relaxing the rules on media ownership is necessary, CWA knows allowing even more local newspapers to be swallowed up will only "accelerate newspaper monopolies, thereby perpetuating a downward spiral of layoffs and closings." CWA-TNG President Bernie Lunzer spoke with Congress about the need to preserve independence and diversity, as part of this commitment to protect journalistic freedom and integrity.
Although there's no legislation related to this issue, CWA opposes any efforts to relax the rules on media ownership.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
CWA Legislative Conference
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Any mention of a strategy to save jobs?
Thanks for your question. This is something that comes up from time to time. It's a matter of what role the Guild plays in the relationship between employees and the company.
Ultimately, saving jobs boils down to operations and management. That's strictly something for the individuals running the business to decide.
Employee advocates and labor organizations have no authority to dictate how a business is run, including staffing levels. Instead, their mission is to ensure that legal and contractual rights are respected, and to negotiate with management on behalf of members.
Where company management is concerned, sometimes employees are asked to provide input on the best way to cut costs or streamline operations, which we obviously support. But again, that's at the discretion of the people in charge.
The bottom line is that no one can "save" any job that management wants to eliminate. The employer created the job, they issue the paycheck, and if the job needs to be eliminated, that's their decision too. The Guild is there to make sure your rights are respected, that layoffs aren't implemented unfairly, and that the company meets its contractual obligations if they decide layoffs are necessary. If there's a dispute, the Guild can advocate for members and pursue remedy - up to and including representation with the National Labor Relations Board.
Despite not having a say in how the company is run, the Guild and our members are far from powerless. As part of a group that's more than 700,000 strong, CWA members can address policy to tackle the underlying conditions responsible for layoffs and cutbacks in the first place. In that respect, legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform are essential.
So what is the difference between the union and having a labor lawyer do the talking for an employee?
There are at least two big differences.
A private attorney is going to cost a lot more money, and they can only work to enforce a contract, not negotiate the terms in the first place.
How much does a lawyer cost? Now how much are union dues? It's not even close. The strongest argument supporting union membership is the concept of collective strength, and that includes the power of your wallet. Dues aren't a lot of money, but they go a long way.
A large group will always have more power than a lone employee. Look at our company. We're not just fighting Dean Singleton, you're fighting his accountants, his partners, his bondholders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Strength comes in numbers.
A lawyer can't negotiate a contract for you. Can you imagine trying to hire a lawyer to fight your boss for a better salary, all by yourself? You'd have a job for about as long as it took them to stop laughing and write up your pink slip. If you decide you want a better salary, tough luck. But if everyone decides they want a better deal, you can negotiate from a position of power. That's the whole point of a union.
So without a union there isn't a contract to enforce in the first place. That means a labor lawyer can only try to enforce federal and state law, which is so weak employers have to do something pretty damn bad before you'll have any chance in court.
Basically, lawyers are great if
1) Your boss has broken a union contract and you've got money to burn, or
2) Your boss is such a jerk that they're trampling federal or state law and you can prove it.
But that's really it. Unions do more, and do it at a much lower cost, than any lawyer you are going to find on your own.
Ok I hear you but lets say the workers pays about $375 a year average in dues. lets say there are 100 employees thats $37,500. You take that and Hire a labor/contract lawyer on retainer.
" A lawyer can't negotiate a contract for you. Can you imagine trying to hire a lawyer to fight your boss for a better salary, all by yourself? "
Negotiation time the lawyers is on call or sits in on a few. The negations are done by workers needs.
Contract content is covered by State and Federal Labor laws and most likely move faster . If you add the grievance procedure plus the federal and state board filing it's too long of a process.
The company can do anything they want in terms of hiring and firing so people have no say in that unless they feel the company violated federal or state labor laws. Then you fight that in court with a lawyer.
The other stuff you are fighting for is expenses and seniority. Both can be fought by a lawyer.
The grievance procedure is a waste of time.
It just seems that the Longer you are with a Union the weaker the contract gets because of the takeaways. If you look at all the contracts on the West Coast and look all the others it is sad. Especially with the cost of living in the West.
I hear you when you say strength in numbers but..
" United Labor
Because unity and solidarity are some of our guiding principles, CWA and other labor organizations like the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, and the NEA established a National Labor Coordinating Committee to work together and create a labor movement that maximizes the strength of its' members."
Shouldn't that have been done a long time ago?
Sometimes to many cooks can spoils the broth.
Best of Luck
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not quite certain what you mean. You're talking about employees banding together, pooling their energy and money, and working for a common goal. How is that any different from a union?
It seems like you're advocating starting your own union, rather than join an existing group. There's nothing wrong with that at all. You would gain more freedom, but lose the benefit of superior numbers, but the relative worth of each is a personal opinion.
Couple of other points though...
Negotiation time the lawyers is on call or sits in on a few. The negations are done by workers needs.
Without a union, the company is not obligated to negotiate with you. They can fire you at will, because asking for more money is not a protected action unless you're in a union and negotiating a contract.
Contract content is covered by State and Federal Labor laws and most likely move faster . If you add the grievance procedure plus the federal and state board filing it's too long of a process.
Those laws are very thin, and don't offer much. And for the little you can get out of them, things aren't much faster. This is the government we're talking about here.
The other stuff you are fighting for is expenses and seniority. Both can be fought by a lawyer.
No, they can't. Employers are obligated to pay you minimum wage, and that's all that the law requires. Seniority only exists in the law in terms of age discrimination. Nothing else.
The grievance procedure is a waste of time.
Did you hear about the settlement they just won? I don't think the people getting those checks think it was all a waste.
Look, I'm not telling you CWA is the best union around, although for me they are. Join a different organization if that works for you, or even start your own union if that makes sense.
All I'm saying is that we have to stand together or we're going to fall individually. The law is no protection.
Post a Comment