Recent Posts


About the Janus ruling

by Dan Burns on June 28, 2018 · 2 comments

scotus2A couple of items:

A 2015 study found strong empirical evidence that unions may help children move up the economic ladder.
According to the study, the New York Times reports, “Children born to low-income families typically ascend to higher incomes in metropolitan areas where union membership is higher. The size of the effect is small, but there aren’t many other factors that are as strongly correlated with mobility.”
The positive impact of unions on children’s upward mobility isn’t exclusive to low-income children, the Times reporters note, and they extend beyond families with union workers to nonunion families too.
(Jeff Bryant/

After holding steady for decades, the percentage of American workers in all jobs who would say yes to join a union jumped sharply this past year, by 50%, says a new, independent study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The evidence is clear: The popularity of the labor movement is surging as more people want to join unions than ever before. Every worker must have the freedom to negotiate in a union over pay, benefits and working conditions.

Comments below fold.


This is one of the better things to have happened in Minnesota, recently.

LaTanya Hughes remembers the long hours of lobbying the Minnesota Legislature to win the right to have a union. Then came weeks spent knocking on doors and phoning other home health care workers to build support for the August 2014 vote.
As a member of the negotiations team for SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, Hughes spent more hours bargaining with the State of Minnesota…
The two-year contract in effect July 1 covers approximately 27,000 workers across the state who provide home care to people with disabilities and seniors. Key victories include paid time off, a raise in the hourly wage floor from $9 to $11 by 2016, a grievance and arbitration procedure to address wage theft and a training fund to improve the quality of care.
(Workday Minnesota)

Opponents are still going after this in court. The rich man and his whimpering, groveling curs know no shame. But if they haven’t been able to find one or more right-wing jurists to give them what they want, yet, it would seem unlikely that they will. But not impossible, especially if it goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Image: Ampersand.)
Comment below fold.

{ 1 comment }

A solid win for unions

by Dan Burns on December 19, 2014 · 0 comments

fistAnd those have been disgracefully few and far between, for way too long now.

On December 12, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced its adoption of a final rule to modernize and streamline the process for resolving union representation disputes. The long overdue rule, taking effect on April 14, 2015, will reduce a number of obstacles working people face when trying to form a union to better their workplaces. (Click on the link) to learn more about these obstacles and why this commonsense NLRB union election rule was needed to help ensure a fair vote in the workplace.
When workers want to vote on whether to form a union, they should have a fair chance to do so. However in recent decades, when employees decided to hold an election on whether to form a union, they could typically encounter significant uncertainty and obstacles that make the process unfair. After workers petition the NLRB for an election, it could take months and even years before they get to cast a vote. Such delays cause unnecessary conflict and disruption in the workplace.
Modernizing the NLRB election process for forming a union creates a level playing field. Employers and workers alike are entitled to a process that cannot be manipulated to gain unfair advantage and is clear, precise, and efficient. Workers will now a fair chance to vote their preference.
(Jobs With Justice)

This is really good, but the way the deck is stacked against organized labor right now, in so many ways, it’s just a fraction of what’s needed. Anything that helps unions needs to be fought for, but so do legislative efforts, at all levels, just generally on behalf of the non-rich. A lot of efforts. Traditional labor unions are not likely to again be what they were decades ago – the basis of the middle class – any time soon. Quite possibly never.
Also, just being realistic:

The National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation are considering lawsuits to prevent the NLRB’s rule from taking effect. Given the anti-worker tilt to many courts, they have a decent shot, just as business groups were able to block a previous NLRB rule calling for employers to put up a poster explaining workers’ rights under federal law.
(Daily Kos)


P1070311Another great example of why we need many, many more like Keith Ellison, in political office, and elsewhere in power.

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison plans to unveil legislation that would make unionization into a legally protected civil right, the congressman said on Saturday.
The bill, which he plans to formally introduce on July 30, would make it easier for workers to take legal action against companies that violate their right to organize.
It is already illegal to fire workers in retaliation for union activities, but enforcing workers’ right to organize can be a tricky process under current law. Currently, wrongfully terminated employees must file an unfair labor practice claim with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which will then determine whether to represent the worker in a legal fight against the employer.
But workers are not able to directly sue their employers for anti-union retaliation, and the process of bringing forward a successful unfair labor practice claim can take years.


Keith Ellison running for relection, video of BBQ

by Eric Ferguson on September 2, 2013 · 1 comment

At his annual Labor Day BBQ on Sunday Sept. 1, US Rep. Keith Ellison, MN-05, announced that he plans to run for reelection in 2014. The video below includes Keith Ellison, Gov. Mark Dayton, and a performance by folk singer Charlie Maguire.

{ 1 comment }

Good & bad news for labor in poll

by Dan Burns on August 2, 2013 · 0 comments

The_hand_that_will_rule_the_worldActually, mostly not all that good. This is from about a month ago.

Favorable opinions of both business corporations and labor unions have rebounded from record lows reached in the summer of 2011.
Overall, more Americans now hold a favorable (55%) than an unfavorable (39%) view of business corporations; two years ago, opinion was reversed (52% unfavorable, 38% favorable). Similarly, views of labor unions have returned to positive territory, with 51% holding a favorable view and 42% holding an unfavorable view – far better ratings than the 46% unfavorable/41% favorable balance of opinion registered in 2011.
(Pew Research – PDF)

51% approval of unions is nowhere near where it needs to be. We’re not effectively countering the despicable union-bashing that is endemic in the “public discourse.”
I figure that the use of “business corporations” led many respondents to express approval of their nearby small-to-medium-sized businesses, which is of course cool. Had they used something like “gargantuan, disgracefully greedy and criminally exploitative multinational corporations,” positive assessments presumably would have been fewer. But I don’t know that for a fact. A lot of people work for those corporations.


Sure, that headline is an overgeneralization. I’m sure new state chair Keith Downey cares about finding a way back into politics or he wouldn’t have run for chair. I mean he doesn’t care about the effects of the policies he wants to put in place. That’s how you can recognize an ideologue: they care that their policies are ideologically correct, and the actual effects are irrelevant.


I dug up the post I wrote about Downey last September, to see if there was any material in there still relevant. Obviously his bills died and he’s not in the legislature to propose them anymore, but in terms of how the new chair thinks, pretty much the whole post still applies.


State Rep. Keith Downey, the GOP Senate candidate in district 49, is probably best known for his 15×15 plan, mandating a 15% reduction in the state’s payroll by 2015. What’s so magical about 15%? It’s the same as the last two digits in 2015. 15 … and 15. See? Isn’t that clever? All the same thought that went into Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan, which I believe was borrowed directly from a pizza pricing campaign. I’m not sure if Downey got his plan from a pizza sale, or a price war among sandwich shops.



For those that want it. Contrary to right-wing lies, people aren’t “forced” to join unions. Anyway, some time ago, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton tried to give some child care providers in Minnesota an opportunity to obtain collective bargaining rights. The exercise of those rights, currently under relentless attack all over this country, is basically what produced the American middle class. Dayton’s attempt to use an executive order was blocked in court. With the legislature back in DFL hands (at least nominally; there’s an additional remark on that, below), another effort is underway.


Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, chief sponsor of the Child Care Collective Bargaining Act, said providers should have a seat at the table, as they do in 16 states.


“They need a unified voice to have a direct impact in raising the standards and quality in the profession,” Pappas said. “To stabilize their workforce, improve their access to training and widening the availability of affordable care for children and working parents, they need a union.”


The bill would affect an estimated 9,000 in-home providers who receive state reimbursements under the Child Care Assistance Program, which is designed to serve low-income families. They would not be classified as public employees and would not have the right to strike.




More generally, in this legislature, will enough DFLers succumb to corporate special interest pressure to block progressive legislation like this, when the chips are down? Still too early to tell, I would say.


Attacks on unions are attacks on the middle class

by Jeff Rosenberg on December 12, 2012 · 4 comments

Once again, a state under Tea Party control is trying to destroy unions. First it was Wisconsin, then Ohio, and now Michigan. Conservatives say they support the free market, but they oppose allowing workers to fight for the best compensation they can get. This is a glaring inconsistency, and it begs the question: Why do they hate unions so much?

The answer is simple: Unions are the only ones who fight the class war on our behalf. Without unions, the super-rich and massive corporations would take all the wealth, instead of just almost all. Attacks on unions are a direct attack on the middle class, led by the party that represents the wealthy oligarchs.

Strong unions and middle-class income gains are closely related. But that’s not all unions have done for us. Labor’s greatest victories are such a fundamental part of our society that we often take them for granted. We expect 40-hour weeks and 2-day weekends. We expect holidays, vacations, and paid overtime. We expect to receive at least a minimum wage. We expect that our children will go to school, instead of going to work in a factory.

But we should never be lulled into thinking that these hard-fought gains are permanent. In fact, they’re constantly under attack. Big business and the rich are hard at work trying to undermine the foundation of the middle class, and they’re succeeding handily.

The battle against our unions needs to be seen in the proper context. It’s a major front in the class war being waged against us by corporations and wealthy oligarchs. Whether or not you’re a union member, you benefit enormously from the work unions do. That makes this an attack on you and your way of life.


     In  surprising article, the right wing group Freedom Foundation of Minnesota actually makes a strong case for increasing teacher’s salaries.  The Freedom Foundation recently looked over the financial disclosures of Education Minnesota and reported that 49 members of the union made in excess of $100,000, with Tom Dooher topping out at $190,000.

   Meanwhile, the average teacher in Minnesota only makes about $54,000. (Please remember that fact the next time some conservative claims the average teachers makes six figures). This disparity seems, at first blush, pretty outrageous. The obvious and reasonable conclusion is that teachers simply do not make enough.

  Now, I know some of you may have come to a different conclusion. There are some conservatives who believe that if one group is making a good living, and another group is struggling, the moral thing to do is tear the successful group down. I cannot believe that the Freedom Foundation is that petty and juvenile. America is supposed to be about marketing your skills at top market value. A group with freedom in their name cannot possibly be against that. therefore, the only logical conclusion is the the Freedom Foundation wants to close this disparity, not by tearing down leaders, but by raising up teachers.

   The Freedom Foundation goes on to talk about how the leaders at Education Minnesota are paid by union dues. Teachers pay, in general, around 2% or less of their salaries in union dues. For that 2% they get representation in contract negotiations, representation in workplace disputes, and $1,000,000 in liability coverage. For 2% or less.

    Imagine if teachers had to hire a private party to negotiate for them. The going rate for private contract negotiation ranges between 5%-10%. Education Minnesota represents over 84,000 clients. Can you imagine a law firm that represented over 84,000 clients? Can you imagine a business being on retainer for 84,000 clients. Can you imagine the top dog at that firm earning less than a quarter million? In essence, the union is a private firm representing 84,000 clients at less than half the going rate. Free market libertarians like the Freedom Foundation should be wondering why Tom Dooher is working so cheap! Doesn’t he realize he should be giving himself obscene bonuses like the bankers?

     In closing, I would like to thank the Minnesota Freedom Foundation for pointing out that teachers just do not make enough money. While many folks might think they are just shamelessly trying to tear down unions, I believe better of them. I really think they want to close the gap by lifting up teachers, not tearing down leaders. Kudos to you Freedom Foundation of Minnesota!!