AFGE's UnionBlog

AFL-CIO Airs Radio Ads in 16 Cities: Vote and Protect Your Vote!

Rachele Huennekens — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:29:00 EST

October 24, Washington – The AFL-CIO today announced a series of radio advertisements featuring celebrity spokespeople urging citizens to vote and telling them how to be prepared to protect their vote on Election Day.. The spots are being aired from Oct. 25 through Nov. 4 on urban and Spanish-language radio stations in 16 media markets across the country.

The radio ads feature rapper Ludacris, movie actor Edward James Olmos, television star Judge Mathis, and “CSI: NY” actor Hill Harper, who donated their services. They remind voters to verify their voter registration and polling place ahead of time, bring ID to the polls on Election Day, and stay in line to cast their votes, even if polls close while they are in line.

“This is a critical election for working families, so we must ensure that citizens know their voting rights and are prepared to do whatever it takes on Election Day to have their votes counted,” said AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker.

The ads are geared towards African American and Hispanic voters because of the barriers to voting – especially voter intimidation and suppression efforts – that these communities have historically faced. The spots recorded by Ludacris, Hill Harper and Judge Mathis will run on radio stations with a majority African American audience in Detroit; Jackson, Miss.; St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.; Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio; Philadelphia; and Norfolk and Richmond, Va. Two spots recorded by Edward James Olmos in Spanish, as well as an additional Spanish language spot, will run on Spanish language radio stations in Denver and Pueblo, Colo.; Miami and Orlando, Fla.; Charlotte, N.C.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Cleveland; Philadelphia; and Northern Va.

The spots, funded by contributions from AFL-CIO affiliated unions, are a key part of the AFL-CIO’s “My Vote, My Right” voter protection effort. In nine states, the AFL-CIO is educating voters about their rights, working with election officials about election administration and recruiting and training volunteer poll monitors and workers. On Election Day, AFL-CIO lawyers will also be on-hand to provide legal support for voters who encounter problems.

"The overall objective of our voter protection campaign is to have the nation's citizens successfully get to the polls, cast ballots, and have their ballots counted," said American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Vice President for Women and Fair Practices Andrea E. Brooks." Americans cannot continue to have their ability to participate in the democratic process taken away from them."

AFGE Comments on FedSmith Article "Chilling the Rancor"

Mark Gibson — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:30:00 EST

This post is an in-depth response to Chilling the Rancor: Suggestions for Federal Union Officials Likely to Produce Positive Results in Labor Relations

If you are a union representative, can you read through to the bottom of this article without hitting the "Comment" button and being in such a hurry to object, you can't spell anything right?

Right off the bat, Mr. Gilson has sought to purposely antagonize readers who are union representatives. One can only surmise, in spite of his following attempts at drawing a connection to pro-union readers, that his personality and style fit more comfortably with his management/consultant roots. And while not a master at grammar and never being a teacher, it seems to me that a couple more words and a period are in order.

Since becoming a Federal employee in 1974, after six years of teaching high school and serving as my school's representative for five of them, I was amazed by the counterproductive and frequently self defeating behavior I witnessed by many Federal union representatives and still am. I must somewhat qualify my remarks regarding blue collar reps. Most of the IBEW, IAM, MTC, Teamster, and other tool wielding union folks were generally savvier and always smarter about how Agencies worked than those in "white" collar jobs.

As I mentioned, Mr. Gilson’s attempt at being one of us, isn’t working. I suspect there were some kinder and gentler ways to introduce his point. As I understand his point, he generally finds federal union representatives working against themselves, and this seems to be more prevalent in union representatives in “white collar” professions more so than “blue collar” jobs.

While I could offer a union perspective analysis of his comment, it would likely be counterproductive and self defeating. So instead of explaining the history of organized labor and its roots in the craft, trades, and skilled jobs, or explaining to Mr. Gilson that many of us, have never figured out how many federal agencies work, or at least those managers who “lead” the organization and direct its workers to fulfilling the mission of the agency.

While a teacher rep, I was taught to study the school system, its policies and politics, very carefully. I was also instructed that administrators were frequently in their jobs a long time and that "trust" was often a function of predictability. I learned that leverage, its identification and use, was variable and formed the only basis for any influence the union might have. I don't know why the blue collar reps are so much better at working the available levers but suspect it may relate to the practical versus theoretical nature of their daily work. Perhaps there's a carryover effect to labor relations of doing "real" work that is evident in its outcome.

Alas, a revelation. Excuse me for my satire and wit, those pesky union characteristics that are protected by law just seem to pop up from time to time.

Back on point. Many union representatives do study the policies and politics of the organization they work in. They also attempt to learn, without help from the employer, the programs and methods in which management operate in. They learn complex personnel systems and rules, how money flows and is budgeted, the complexities of multiple levels of management, how funding is linked and driven by the political process, and how the employer attempts to hide behind, ignore, or confuse its own internal rules and policies.

We also understand leverage and apply it every day. While I admit, we often miss opportunities to lift the otherwise immovable object with the right lever, but we learn every day and seldom forget.

So here are my top things union reps can do to be more effective.

1. Get Some Distance from an Issue.

Messianic belief in an employee's story of horrid management abuse coupled with monumental outrage at the obvious mistreatment of a beleaguered Federal employee with few benefits and totally lacking in redress options won't cut it. If you want to serve your constituent/client/potential grievant effectively, get some objectivity or give it to another rep. The old saw that a self representing lawyer has a fool for a client is only funny if it can't be applied to you.

I’m at a loss here Mr. Gilson. The horrid managerial abuse and the union’s outrage at mistreatment of a co-worker happens every day. And all too often, the redress is lacking. While I would agree, that no one should represent themselves, trying to hide the fact that federal employees do need representation every day, and that the federal government is not the model employer mystifies me.

So what is it? Don’t represent yourself or seeking representation by the union is pointless. Take what management dishes out and shut up and lay by your bowl?

If your local is broke and can't afford a business agent, it's probably because the leadership does a crummy organizing job or that employees don't care whether there's a union or not. Find a way to encourage membership and get the bucks to hire a pro. A professional representative will ALWAYS do better than the inside talent if for no other reason than they are more able to develop medium to long range goals and go about obtaining them. Usually, when I asked the local leadership if it had a plan, I got a vacant stare or a "HUH"?

While many unions employ “hired staff” (not all are business agents), the core of the union are in member representatives, elected or selected to serve on the front line of representing employees. The reasons you’ve found to support why a union would not employ a “business agent” seemed based more on your personal agenda of being a “for hire” labor relations practitioner than for any real reason.

As federal employees unions must represent non-members within some prescribed constraints, funding these types of positions fall on the membership of the union with an expectation by those who are so inclined to have their cake and eat it too without paying a dime for it, that these “professionals” represent them as well.

Like it or not, many local unions strongly believe in representation by those who are co-workers and who have a passion for representing employees. While not every union representative has the same capabilities, I am reminded of the first time I needed a union representative. I watched in amazement as this self taught representative with a high school diploma, bested several agency labor attorneys, the senior management of a military base, and several labor relations and HR practitioners.

I continue to see this level of compassion every day in union activists who have chosen to serve their co-workers.

And with respect to the management view of planning with goals, 8 by 10 pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back telling about each one, many unions do employ those business strategies. And in most unions, those local union leaders developed them. Unlike management strategies that are top driven and often ignored.

I would also suspect, that the “Huh” or vacant stare was more in tune to the union representative amazed that you asked, and more amazed that you expected them to tell you the long range plans and goals of the union. Kind of like if George Washington shared his plans to cross the Delaware with the Hessians.

2. Consider Term Limits for Elected Union Officials.

If term limits are a good idea for politicians, how about union politicians? Hanging around on official time and not doing your "day" job for all or part of a day while you complain about management can become a very comfortable arrangement. Little changes and new ideas are few and far between. Take a look at your local's demographics. If the leadership is a different age, race or gender, it may be time to shuffle the cards.

How are good union representatives and bad managers alike? Both seem to stay around for a long time.

The difference is that unions are democratic organizations with protections governed by both internal rule and law that protects the membership against folks that tend to be more like bad managers than good union representatives.

And as a democratically run organization, leaders are elected by those whom they will serve. If for whatever reason, the majority doesn’t like the direction the union is headed, the membership votes for a change.

I don’t know of too many union representatives that are too comfortable. I also don’t see management officials using their annual leave and non-duty time in the amounts that union representatives do. And with respect to Mr. Gilson’s consideration in looking at the age, race and gender of the union representative and making a change in the leadership because of any of those, well hell, that’s what we fight every day against the employer.

I could really go off here but I’ve promised myself that I will not stop to the biased level suggested by Mr. Gilson.

3. Vet Stewards and Officers.

Even if membership is low (maybe even specifically in that case), don't elect or appoint anyone to a representative that has a recent record of discipline or performance problems, is a job jumper or whose coworkers wouldn't trust to run the coffee fund. Self-interested or grudge holding reps are always working their own agenda and it's reflected in the quality of their representation work.

While Mr. Gilson may have some valid suggestions here, sometimes the guy who has been bit is the person you want watching the kennel. While calm, reasoned, and articulate union representatives are always a plus, sometimes the manager your dealing with needs to deal with a table thumper who knows every dirty trick the manager has ever pulled.

I’ve found pairing union representatives very effective in “finding” a solution to a problem that management created in the first place.

4. Require Representatives to Learn the Ins and Outs of the Labor Law, Contract, Agency Operations and Human Resource Policies.

I once sat at a bargaining table during contract negotiations in which the union proposed a 26 page "Merit Promotion" article. I was a little amazed since the Agency generally hired into career ladder jobs and the only promotion actions were into supervision. Amazed, that is, until I discovered that the local bargainers didn't know that the Agency could refuse to bargain over the filling of supervisory jobs. I think we ended up with a three section article after the union's national rep explained things. If potential reps aren't willing to learn the "business", for heaven's and the unit's sake, don't let them represent employees. It's unfair to everyone involved.

I agree with Mr. Gilson on this one. And in fact, would suggest that it be applied equally to agency officials. Even the agency attorneys that try to bend the law to the mantra of their bosses.

But I would also surmise that often, in the basic resolution of a dispute, sometimes the less you know about the law, and the more you know about fixing problems and getting folks to get along, is worth its weight in gold.

5. Change Your Focus from Litigation to Negotiation.

Learn about leverage. Know when you have it, when you don't. When the other guy has it, look for ways to get some yourself. In most cases, by the time Federal cases work their way through the various systems, no one recalls why they were filed. Leverage is a fleeting tool and must be used or lost while it's on your side. If you don't have a clue about what I just said, please don't become a union rep.

The agency may forget while a particular action was filed, or what the under laying caused were that got the parties before a third party, but trust me, the union seldom does. Litigation and negotiation in the work place go hand in hand when one of the principles to the agreement isn’t good to their word.

While I agree that the unions could stand to bargain better, from what I have seen the last few years in at least one of the major federal employees unions is that they are bargaining better.

And, if it weren’t for litigation, employees would be selected for jobs based on age, gender, and race as Mr. Gilson suggests how union representatives should be selected.

6. Bargain Smarter.

I constantly watch a repeating saga. The union puts a hundred or so changes to a contract on the table. Reacting to this challenge, management assembles a team, girds its loins for a big effort and prepares to bargain. The parties end up at the Panel after considerable time and little or nothing changes. I'm convinced that if the union put three or four initiatives on the table, sold them in advance and got employees interested (none of which I ever saw happen), they'd get most or all of what they wanted. Management has other agenda and if you wake them up, they'll out prepare you every time. It's a function of resources

Not a bad point. Unfortunately, the practice supports the management doctrine of seeking more take aways and limiting actual real benefits to employees. For example, how about that telework initiative. My bad, telework law. Where is the agency in that? And why on earth are they pushing unions to impasse on it?

7. Solicit Input and Listen to Non-Member Unit Employees.

You want members, find out what the non-members want and put it on the table. I was labor director at a place with a lot of professionals. I hinted that a proposal establishing a book and periodical allowance for each employee might be received favorably. I never saw the proposal. I guess since the union leaders didn't want to learn anything new, they assumed the workforce didn't either.

Most unions do listen to non-member unit employee issues. They just don’t get to vote on anything or dictate the direction and position of the union. Did you ever consider that just maybe the single event that formulated your biased opinion was not that interesting to employees or the union? Maybe one of their top three or four issues were focused on work schedules, child care, telework, or dignity in the workplace?

8. Don't Submit an SF-1187 at the Same Time as a Grievance or Other Appeal.

Every single labor relations specialist in the Federal government will tell you that a grievance from a non-member is either accompanied or followed shortly by a request for dues withholding. It's the #1 joke in the program. You want credibility, this will not get it. I also recently saw an LM-3 (Union financial report to DOL) that indicated that every employee who had a case arbitrated in a certain unit within at least a three-four year period had paid the cost of the arbitration themselves. That's a shameful thing.

Many federal employees don’t join the union until they need them. What they don’t realize, is that they needed the union long before the event that sparked the 1187. And more importantly, they never realized that the union needed them. It is for this reason, that 1187’s get processed when they come in.

The Federal sector is the home of atrocious union language and demeanor. Cursing, swearing, demeaning personal attacks and the like are unfortunately frequent characteristics of Federal union representatives as compared to their private sector counterparts by a large margin. Folks, just because some political appointee at FLRA thinks bad language is a protected activity doesn't mean you must engage in it. I observed Federal managers, military and civilian, who had risen in government service in respectable careers sit and take personal abuse because they were instructed that they had to. What is absolutely true, but will never be said aloud, is that such bad behavior can make that manager into a skilled, smart and motivated opponent whose unspoken but deep felt personal motto may be "Give 'em nothin' and make it retroactive".

If I'm wrong about your local, I apologize. If I'm right, I hope this may help to focus on some obstacles that can be easily eliminated with the right approach.

As always, the opinions stated here are mine alone.

This will be my last article for a few weeks. I'm on vacation in a country with as rich a labor union heritage as any, Bella Italia. So Caio until I get back.

A senior agency official told me more than once that he told his subordinates that you get the union you deserve. You get what you give. What most agency officials and Mr. Gilson expects is that union representatives should cower and bow in a subservient fashion to agency officals.

Treat us with respect and dignity, and we will return the gesture. Treat us like a cur dog that just did their business on your carpet and you’ll end up with wet carpet every time.

The original article can be seen at: http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1717/

The following comment was posted directly to the article by an AFGE staff counsel:

Typically, your piece is an unsupported diatribe poorly disguised as advice. It offers little useful information beyond insight into your own anti-union bias. First, you insult unions then you make sweeping generalizations based only on your own limited personal and anecdotal experience.

My top (now 9) condensed responses:

Membership is up. Define objective.

Hmmnnn. Can I edit after submission too? Anyway, officers are elected. If they're doing nothing, agencies can discontinue official time, and members can vote them out.

Does the "own agenda" rule apply to pundits?

Can we train the agency reps too?

It takes two to negotiate.

So, if unions play their cards right, management will just role over? Sure.

Did you take a poll? Maybe the workforce had other priorities.

Credibility? With whom? You? What's your point?

Union reps respond to how they're treated too. And, it's the CSRA (you know, a statute) that protects debate.

NAFTA: Time for a Trade-in

Bill Fletcher — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:42:00 EST

So Many NAFTA Casualties

The most conservative estimates indicate that NAFTA has cost the U.S. a minimum of 525,000 manufacturing jobs, and some estimates range as high as 766,030. These jobs have not been replaced by other manufacturing opportunities. In general, those who have lost employment as a result of NAFTA, as well as the roughly 3 million workers who have lost manufacturing jobs during the post-1994 period, have “migrated” into lower-wage employment in the service sector.

Ross Perot famously talked about a “giant sucking sound” of jobs moving from the U.S. to Mexico, but the picture has been more complicated than that. Mexico has suffered severely from NAFTA with the depression of its agricultural sector—its products couldn’t compete with cheap foodstuffs from the U.S.—leading to a mass relocation of rural residents into cities and later to the U.S. The combination of documented and undocumented immigrants has served as a ready-made low-wage pool for avaricious U.S. employers seeking to cut costs and increase profits. In addition, and ironically, employers that did relocate to Mexico from the U.S. and Canada have now begun an exodus, moving to even lower-wage areas such as China and Vietnam.

What the NAFTA experience really points to is that steps such as NAFTA, allegedly taken to “grow the economy,” increasingly benefit a smaller and smaller segment of those societies, including the U.S., that follow a “neo-liberal economic model.” In comparison, little has been gained by those who have lost their jobs (or the communities that shared the benefits of their employment) because of NAFTA.

The time has come for a renegotiated relationship that places the interests of working people and the environment ahead of the corporate bottom line. The same myopia that has our financial markets in meltdown shaped the thinking and objectives behind NAFTA.

Click here to read the rest of the BusinessWeek article.

Middle Aged White Guys for Obama

Mark Gibson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:28:00 EST

Having been moved by both President John Gage’s and Field Services Director Bill Fletcher’s words during a recent conference in Las Vegas, it struck me that just maybe, some of us middle aged white guys who have managed not to be overcome by the presence of racial biases and bigotry that exists in our society may get cast in the same low illuminate that some folks will bring to this election. It kind of ticks me off.

I would hate to be judged, or have it inferred, that my vote and therefore my political voice on governance was swayed by something that in all honesty, if I practiced, my mother would come back from the grave and beat me to within an inch of my life.

So I’m thinking that maybe some of us middle aged white fellas should have a coalition so that we can let folks know that the colors we see are red, white and blue. And that to make sure those colors are honored, supported, held in prosperity and with respect, and that all those who live under the stars and stripes are treated with respect, dignity, and honor. And, as such, we will support Obama.

While I undoubtedly respect John McSame’s service to his country, there is more to being President of these United States in 2008 than being a POW over three decades ago. Besides, I don’t drink the brand of beer his wife hawks.

But I think a good number of us middle aged white guys want more from our President than remembrances of a previous time and point in history. We want a president for today and tomorrow and one that has at least a fighting chance of instituting some long needed change in what we have been forced to endure under threat of having our patriotism and beliefs challenged these past 7 and ½ years.

Why should I now be ashamed of the visual picture people see of Mark Gibson, middle aged white guy? When people see me voting in November, will they assume the worst and believe that some deep seated racial bias is influencing my vote? Or should they look at me as a voter, and wonder if I smelled the bull [expletive] and decided that a change is in order? I prefer the later. “One can always close their eyes, but smell always seems to filter through”.

My first steps in forming my coalition, which I intend to call “Middle Aged WHITE MEN for Obama” is to find like-minded individuals who share my view. Part of my thought in the MAWGFOBAMA would be to have the founding members’ picture taken. I’m thinking your run of the mill, middle aged, average working stiff white guys for the photo. Dress as we are, representing who and what we are. Voters looking to make a difference. It’s time to stop the madness, identify the idiots, return them to their village, and move in a direction together.

So, should I refill the prescription or run with the idea?

Mark Gibson
Coalition Founder of MIDDLE AGED WHITE GUYS FOR OBAMA.

PS – if you are interested in joining, all you have to do is pronounce the racial implications in this election and pledge your support to Obama.

PSS – Joe Biden ain’t a bad fellow either. If any of you know his email, you could forward this to him. Maybe he’d want to join us.

Wall Street Crisis Good Time to Reflect on What’s Working: Social Security

Tula Connell — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:05:00 EST

This past weekend, we saw Hurricane Ike spread destruction along the Gulf Coast and we witnessed the devastation along Wall Street in the wake of financial greed helped along by the bank deregulation legislation of Sen. John McCain’s economic adviser Phil Gramm (the same Gramm who said the nation is a bunch of whiners for complaining about the U.S. economic crisis).

As Harold Pollack, associate professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, writes on Huffington Post today, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the fire-sale takeover of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America—along with last week’s government bailout of private mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—provide a good time to reflect on the fiscal soundness of the nation’s Social Security system.

And a good time to see how McCain’s policies would destroy the nation’s most successful social safety net. Because while Sen. Barack Obama would strengthen Social Security, McCain wants to throw it to the private sector—where our retirement funds could easily be gambled away in a volatile stock market such as the one we’ve seen in recent months.

Writes Pollack:

Whatever you may hear, the system is in remarkably good shape these days, even as everything else in the economy seems headed to hell in a hand basket.

Social Security actuaries note that unfunded Social Security liabilities over the next 75 years amount to about 0.6 percent of GDP. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent digs a budget hole three times as large.

And making tax cuts permanent is exactly what McCain said he would do if elected. Pollack continues:

McCain says it’s a “disgrace” that younger people subsidize the retirement of preceding generations. The real disgrace is the utter mismatch between McCain’s rhetoric and his own tax plan.

McCain’s rhetoric is a stalking horse for private accounts. Many libertarians and conservatives want to replace the current Social Security system with one modeled on corporate 401(k) plans, with an ancillary welfare program tacked on.

Never mind the findings of nonpartisan experts that his tax plan leaves the great, great majority of American households worse off than the Obama plan does. Never mind the growing pile of newspaper stories noting that McCain’s been repeatedly lying about this simple fact.

If McCain is worried about the future, what on earth is he doing suggesting a tax plan that accumulates such huge deficits? By 2018, his tax plan adds more than $200 billion more than the Obama plan does to the federal deficit, every year. Given the difference in tax plans, Senator Obama could wage another Iraq war and cover about 90 percent of the projected Social Security shortfall while still running a lower deficit than Senator McCain would.

As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said today:

The events of the weekend should make clear the desperate need for a President who understands the nature of the economic crisis facing our country and has a concrete plan for rebuilding our economy that is founded on good jobs rather than financial bubbles. Again today, Sen. John McCain repeated that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong,” a statement he and President Bush have made regularly over the past nine months, as conditions deteriorated. As president, Sen. Barack Obama will lead the fundamental economic changes we so urgently need.

Our retirement security could depend upon who’s elected president this November. Take a look at the positions of McCain and Obama on Social Security and retirement.

This blog is a re-post from the AFL-CIO blog, to see the original post click here