Organized Labor

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Teamsters’ Black Caucus Endorses Harris While Parent Union Stays Silent

      by

      The National Black Caucus of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency on Tuesday, setting it apart from its parent union, which has declined to make an endorsement and whose president spoke at the Republican National Convention.“Their records reflect a deep dedication to advancing labor rights and supporting working-class Americans,” the caucus said of Ms. Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, in a statement announcing its endorsement. “As a key partner in leading the most pro-labor administration in our lifetimes, Vice President Harris has proven to be a tough and principled fighter for workers’ rights and a leader who delivers on her promises.”The statement praised the bipartisan infrastructure bill President Biden signed, as well as steps his administration has taken to lower prescription drug costs and increase wages. It also credited Ms. Harris with pushing to expand the child tax credit — which the pandemic relief bill Mr. Biden signed in 2021 did temporarily, but Congress declined to do permanently — and with helping to preserve union members’ pensions.It said that former President Donald J. Trump’s administration “was one of the most antilabor in modern history,” citing among other things his loosening of workplace safety regulations and his opposition to raising the federal minimum wage. And it criticized Mr. Trump as “contributing to a hostile environment for Black Americans.”“Trump showed us for over 40 years who he really is: someone who is not for us,” James Curbeam, the chairman of the caucus, said in the statement. “Endorsing a candidate with his history would be a betrayal of the values that we have fought to uphold.”The decision to endorse Ms. Harris aligns the Teamsters’ National Black Caucus with other major organized-labor institutions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the United Automobile Workers and the American Federation of Teachers. But the overall Teamsters union has not endorsed either party’s ticket.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Eddie Canales, 76, Dies; Gave Migrants Water, and Dignity

      by

      After a long career as a union organizer, he came out of retirement in 2013 to form the South Texas Human Rights Center and provide lifesaving aid.Eddie Canales, a human rights advocate who fought to save migrants trekking through the harsh terrain of South Texas, died on July 30 at his home in Corpus Christi. He was 76.The cause was pancreatic cancer, said Nancy Vera, his associate at the South Texas Human Rights Center, the nonprofit rescue organization that Mr. Canales founded in Falfurrias, Texas.For over a decade, Mr. Canales placed dozens of water stations — giant blue plastic barrels marked “Agua” filled with gallon water jugs — along the region’s routes for migrants evading a checkpoint on U.S. Route 281, about 70 miles north of the border with Mexico. The migrants, who are usually led (and sometimes abandoned) by smugglers, known as “coyotes,” leave the main road and undertake a perilous journey through featureless scrub and bush to evade the Border Patrol.Some don’t make it. Those who fail succumb to severe dehydration, hunger and exposure to the unforgiving elements in a semi-desert where temperatures can easily reach 100 degrees in the summer and drop below freezing during the winter. Mr. Canales led a campaign to recover, identify and ensure proper burials for the migrants’ remains.The mission required forcefulness and tact. The land is private and belongs to South Texas ranchers, many indifferent or hostile. Some have created armed posses dressed in military gear to hunt up the migrants and turn them over to the authorities, as shown in a trenchant 2021 documentary about Mr. Canales’s work, “Missing in Brooks County.”The migrants “go through the ranches,” Mr. Canales said in a 2015 oral history interview for the University of North Texas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Unions tell the Biden administration to stop sending military aid to Israel.

      by

      Several unions with millions of members demanded that the president secure a cease-fire in Gaza.A group of unions representing millions of workers sent a letter on Tuesday to the White House demanding a cease-fire in the war in Gaza and that the United States stop sending military aid to Israel.Immediately cutting military aid to the Israeli government “is necessary to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict,” read a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times, which added that the unions believed it was the best path forward after Israel and Hamas did not agree to the cease-fire deal the Biden administration outlined in May.But negotiations are ongoing. Last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said a Gaza cease-fire deal was “inside the 10-yard line,” though the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, also said there is no expectation peace would be brokered before Wednesday. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will speak before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.Congress and President Biden have repeatedly allocated military funding for Israel to fight its war against Hamas in Gaza after Hamas brutally attacked Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023. But the growing humanitarian toll in the region has led to calls for an end to hostilities among many Americans.Unions, though historically associated with the left, have politically diverse membership and have been courted by both Mr. Biden, who dropped out the race on Sunday, and the Republicans’ presidential nominee, former President Donald J. Trump. Given their membership, the union letter is a strong statement from a key electorate that the administration needs to update its Mideast foreign policy, a policy that Vice President Kamala Harris, who was endorsed by Mr. Biden and several top Democrats to become the Democrats’ nominee, will also have to speak for.Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the fighting, the letter noted, and argued that unless the U.S. changes course, “the Israeli government will continue to pursue its vicious response to the horrific attacks of October 7th until it is forced to stop.”The American Postal Workers Union, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, the National Education Association, Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers and United Electrical Workers signed onto the letter.“Our unions are hearing the cries of humanity as this vicious war continues,” said Mark Dimondstein, the president of the postal workers’ union, in a statement. “Working people and our unions are horrified that our tax dollars are financing this ongoing tragedy. We need a cease-fire now, and the best way to secure that is to shut off U.S. military aid to Israel.”The letter is in accordance with a vote that one of the unions representing service employees, the SEIU, took two months ago. In May, that group passed a resolution at its annual convention demanding that the government cease using taxpayer dollars to “fund military aid that enables attacks against innocent civilians in Gaza.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Amazon Workers Narrowly Reject Union Drive at British Warehouse

      by

      The vote, which would have forced the tech giant to negotiate collectively with workers, was the closest an Amazon center in Britain had come to being unionized.A fight to form the first union at an Amazon warehouse in Britain came to an end this week, as organizers of the effort fell short by just 28 votes.About 2,600 employees at the warehouse in Coventry, in the Midlands of England, took part in a ballot for union recognition, which would have forced Amazon to negotiate collectively with the bulk of workers there over working conditions, as well as pay, holiday and other benefits. More than 3,000 Amazon workers were eligible to vote.But in the end, the effort failed, with only 49.5 percent voting in favor in a poll approved by the Central Arbitration Committee, a government body. It is the closest any Amazon center in Britain has come to being unionized.The results come amid accusations by GMB, a nationwide union, lawyers and some workers that the American tech giant had been heavy-handed in its efforts to discourage unionization. Amazon has a history of pushing back against union movements. In the United States, only one warehouse, on Staten Island, has a formally recognized union. A labor union in Germany has been trying to get collective bargaining powers for more than a decade.The vote fell “agonizingly short” of a majority, said GMB, which counts Amazon employees among its 500,000 members from various occupations.“Amazon bosses have created a culture of fear for low-paid workers trying to improve their pay, terms and conditions,” said Stuart Richards, an organizer at GMB.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Cancels Speech to Teachers After Union’s Staff Strikes

      by

      Employees of the National Education Association picketed the site of the group’s annual convention after a walkout over issues including overtime pay.A strike by the staff of the nation’s largest teachers’ union has prompted President Biden to cancel a speech on Sunday in Philadelphia, where he was scheduled to address thousands of delegates to the union’s annual convention.The staff union of the National Education Association began its strike on Friday, citing management’s revocation of holiday overtime pay for the Fourth of July holiday and its refusal to provide information on $50 million in outsourced work that may have previously been done by N.E.A. staff. The strike has shut down the last three days of the four-day convention, as delegates declined to cross a picket line.Mr. Biden’s campaign said he would not do so, either. “President Biden is a fierce supporter of unions and he won’t cross a picket line,” a statement from his campaign said, adding that the president was still planning to travel to Pennsylvania over the weekend.The National Education Association has about 2.5 million members nationwide, not including retirees, according to a recent government filing. The staff union says it represents more than 350 employees assigned to the union’s headquarters in Washington.The staff union, the National Education Association Staff Organization, voted to authorize a strike in April, and its three-year contract expired in late May. It waged a one-day walkout in June. “N.E.A. has abandoned its union values with its actions at the bargaining table,” said the president of the staff union, Robin McLean, in a statement. “N.E.A. would rather cancel a multimillion-dollar convention than comply with labor law.”The N.E.A. said in a statement that it remained “fully committed to a fair bargaining process” and accused the staff union of circulating “misinformation” that “not only misrepresents the facts but also undermines the integrity of our ongoing efforts to honor a fair bargaining process.”The union added that the association offered generous benefits and competitive salaries, saying its current proposal would raise the average salary of staff union members to about $133,000 from about $124,000. The staff union said that salary increases had lagged for years and that most members would see an increase of less than 2 percent per year under the proposal.Strikes by unions’ staff members are not unheard of. Employees of the United Food and Commercial Workers union held a one-day walkout in May. The staff of a large local of the Service Employees International Union in California waged a two-week strike in 2022. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Dear Elites (of Both Parties), the People Will Take It From Here, Thanks

      by

      I first learned about the opioid crisis three presidential elections ago, in the fall of 2011. I was the domestic policy director for Mitt Romney’s campaign and questions began trickling in from the New Hampshire team: What’s our plan?By then, opioids had been fueling the deadliest drug epidemic in American history for years. I am ashamed to say I did not know what they were. Opioids, as in opium? I looked it up online. Pills of some kind. Tell them it’s a priority, and President Obama isn’t working. That year saw nearly 23,000 deaths from opioid overdoses nationwide.I was no outlier. America’s political class was in the final stages of self-righteous detachment from the economic and social conditions of the nation it ruled. The infamous bitter clinger and “47 percent” comments by Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney captured the atmosphere well: delivered at private fund-raisers in San Francisco in 2008 and Boca Raton in 2012, evincing disdain for the voters who lived in between. The opioid crisis gained more attention in the years after the election, particularly in 2015, with Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s research on deaths of despair.Of course, 2015’s most notable political development was Donald Trump’s presidential campaign launch and subsequent steamrolling of 16 Republican primary opponents committed to party orthodoxy. In the 2016 general election he narrowly defeated the former first lady, senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who didn’t need her own views of Americans leaked: In public remarks, she gleefully classified half of the voters who supported Mr. Trump as “deplorables,” as her audience laughed and applauded. That year saw more than 42,000 deaths from opioid overdoses.In a democratic republic such as the United States, where the people elect leaders to govern on their behalf, the ballot box is the primary check on an unresponsive, incompetent or corrupt ruling class — or, as Democrats may be learning, a ruling class that insists on a candidate who voters no longer believe can lead. If those in power come to believe they are the only logical options, the people can always prove them wrong. For a frustrated populace, an anti-establishment outsider’s ability to wreak havoc is a feature rather than a bug. The elevation of such a candidate to high office should provoke immediate soul-searching and radical reform among the highly credentialed leaders across government, law, media, business, academia and so on — collectively, the elites.The response to Mr. Trump’s success, unfortunately, has been the opposite. Seeing him elected once, faced with the reality that he may well win again, most elites have doubled down. We have not failed, the thinking goes; we have been failed, by the American people. In some tellings, grievance-filled Americans simply do not appreciate their prosperity. In others they are incapable of informed judgments, leaving them susceptible to demagoguery and foreign manipulation. Or perhaps they are just too racist to care — never mind that polling consistently suggests that most of Mr. Trump’s supporters are women and minorities, or that polling shows he is attracting far greater Black and Hispanic support than prior Republican leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Backs Starbucks Over ‘Memphis 7’ Union Case

      by

      In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices cited inconsistent standards for courts to order employers to reinstate fired workers.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing.Eight justices backed the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion concurring with parts of the majority opinion, dissenting from other portions and agreeing with the overall judgment.The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store, while the workers said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating.After the firings, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying that Starbucks had acted because the workers had “joined or assisted the union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.” Separately, lawyers for the board asked a federal judge in Tennessee for an injunction reinstating the workers, and the judge issued the order in August 2022.The agency asks judges to reinstate workers in such cases because resolving the underlying legal issues can take years, during which time other workers may become discouraged from organizing even if the fired workers ultimately prevail.In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company argued that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions that reinstate workers, which the N.L.R.B. has the authority to seek under the National Labor Relations Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      U.A.W.’s Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Its Leader, Shawn Fain

      by

      The court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.A court-appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the United Automobile Workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, Shawn Fain, and two U.A.W. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties.The monitor, Neil M. Barofsky, also accused the union on Monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested.The union declined to comment.The assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in Michigan about Mr. Barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after Justice Department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges.That process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership — balloting that elevated Mr. Fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year.One matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary-treasurer, Margaret Mock. In February, the union’s international executive board voted to support Mr. Fain’s move to strip Ms. Mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report.Ms. Mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More