From the Drafts Folder: "This Almost Certainly Will Not Interest You", March 7, 2011

The public sector unions' protest in Wisconsin has, not surprisingly, given me a lot to think about. I've been working with unions since 1997, and most of those years have been depressing. Not because unions weren't making strong economic or political gains for their members, but because their market share was shriveling. Today, only 6.9% of the private sector is unionized. The public sector helps boost the unionized market density to around 13%, but the power of unions is, at this point, nostalgic and political. The Wisconsin battles are unusual in that they are focussed on the rights of unions (collective bargaining, dues collection) as opposed to individual rights or political interests. In fact, the unions in Wisconsin have largely acceded to the Republican budget cuts; they firmly recognize that the governor is trying to deal the fatal blow. If Walker can win in Wisconsin, the Republicans can win anywhere.

But what if the unions win? What then? They aren't about to regain market share at this point. At its height, the American labor movement included more than 30% of the workforce; that height is unimaginable today. We've lost those jobs completely. Good-bye, manufacturing sector. And even if they do win in WI, they are saddled with a whole set of responsibilities which inhibit their ability to deal with industrial issues in the represented workforce.

Let me back up and talk a little about the different components of what a union offers its members. Via their union, members get (1) political power, via campaign contributions, access to politicians and voter turnout machines that are top notch; (2) legal service, via the grievance and arbitration process. Individual workers who are disciplined and groups of workers deprived of contractual rights have representation for their issues. This is called representational services. Then there's (3) industrial service, where unions advocate for industrial services and standards. This springs in some part from a "craft" or "trade" mentality, where the labor market understands that union labor is superior, because of its training and safety standards. The member gets superior training and the union advocates for those individuals to get the work over non-union employees. Unions also offer (4) collective bargaining/negotiations service, wherein the union bargains for higher wages and benefits than are available elsewhere.

Each of these services is emphasized differently within each union, and each is demonized by the enemies of unions. In turn, the union may be viewed as "the machine", the reason that the jerk comes back to work, the reason people are excluded from certain jobs and budget-busters. I'm not really going to deal with those assumptions. I just raised those frameworks to ask, "If the unions in Wisconsin win, what do they offer their members, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC?"

I have two ideas. In Ohio, public sector bargaining rights have been rolled back to a point where the unions can only negotiate about wages and benefits. However, what if the opposite were true, and unions had to negotiate about everything? Literally, what if the unions were required to bargain about all the problems faced by their employers? This is antithetical to most ideas about bargaining, but I think that *not* asking unions to think constructively about the future is one of the reasons that they have no incentive to bargain over anything but their share of the pie.

Second, I do think that the basic structure of unions is flawed in a way that inhibits their ability to effectively incorporate all four of their service orientations. Presently, most unions assign staff based on the employer, and the union representative is expected to be political organizer, legal advocate, journey level trainer and contract negotiator. This is absurd. No one can do all of these. In addition to the problem of having the right skills mix, individual staff get overly involved in a particular workplace, and become myopic. The problems of those employees become all that the union representative, and their creativity and objectivity fall into disuse.

I think that a union should staff in the following way. There should be advocates handling grievances; political organizers doing issues organizing and voter turnout; career counselors and trainers for industrial skill development; and trained negotiators. I think that there should also be healthcare and retirement benefit counselors who understand union health and retirement plans and can help workers navigate those, as well as advise negotiators about issues that need to be tackled. These folks would work as a team, providing high quality services from their area of expertise.

Why? Unions need to make the case that their battle is worth winning.

Some Thoughts on Wisconsin and the Labor Movement

Those of you who know me well may wonder why I am not on the ramparts (at least rhetorically) about the Wisconsin labor war that has reminded people that collective bargaining is actually controversial and necessary. Don't get me wrong: I think that workers' rights to join unions, collectively bargain or otherwise join together for their mutual aid and benefit, is fundamental. Freedom of association, speech, to contract - it's there in the U.S. Constitution. I recommend you read Section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act. The United Nation's recognize these as inalienable human rights; this puts the Wisconsin legislature on par with Colombia and China, where workers are deprived of these rights, and activists are subject to aggression by the state.

And/so/but what? What do the unions have to do with all this? What do the unions, as the legal institutions charged with enforcing these rights (rather than the government), have to offer in furtherance of collective bargaining rights? Even if the right side ultimately prevails in this war- and even if Scott Walker was using the budget shortfall as a Trojan horse for the deprivation of these rights - many state and local governments are hamstrung financially by their collectively bargained pension and healthcare obligations.

I'll be blunt: unions have been part of the problem. And workers aren't really buying what unions are selling. Unions blame a range of factors for their organizing and public image problems: bad labor and immigration laws ("if we just pass EFCA!"), dirty employer tricks, the proliferation of individual rights, worker fear, weak Democrats, etc. etc. The fact is, unions had it much harder at the turn of the century. No laws or laws criminalizing unions, actual violence against workers, no political power. But people wanted collective bargaining power (not unions per se) and they were willing to stand up for it, the way folks in Wisconsin are today.

So what can unions do about it? I don't claim to know the answer. But I have some ideas. First of all, unions need to change the way they offer services to their members. Currently, unions assign staff based on their members' employer. These people are responsible for knowing all of the collective bargaining agreements with each employer, and enforcing the agreements with grievances. They might also collect dues or do political fundraising, and might know a little bit about their members' benefits. Some unions also have an external organizing staff that is trying to organize new members. Staff are chronically stretched, and are expected to have a super-human range of skills (legal advocacy, negotiations, employee benefits, counseling, organizing, political skills, communications skills) with hardly any staff development opportunities. In reality, 80-90% of their time is spent dealing with 2% of their members, "the squeaky wheels" who have grievances pending. Union staff take their frustrations out on the employers they interact with. The "Employer" becomes the cause of all their problems. They associate their work with the problems of their members vis a vis their employer, and never consider the underlying work, or industry itself. They also fail to advocate for their silent majority of members, who have a diminishing sense of the value their union brings to them.

Unions need to organize themselves differently. They should have advocates who litigate grievances, negotiators who bargain all contracts, employee benefit specialists, political departments who advocate for legislation and regulations that benefit both workers - in their work - and their industry, and external organizers. They should have extensive training and education departments committed to upgrading worker skills based on the latest technology (rather than fighting it). Each of these departments would offer services to union members without regard to their employer, and would regularly confer with one another about their industry norms, standards and future.

This wouldn't fix everything, but it isn't lipstick either. Until unions take responsibility for the things they can control, they aren't going to be perceived as relevant to most American workers. I wouldn't want to join an organization which claims to be (or seems to be) powerless about the very problems about which I seek its counsel and protection, either. (I say this as a member of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Communications Workers of America, Local 32035)

I've tried to focus these thoughts on areas where unions are solely responsible (internal bureaucracy/governance). But there are other areas where unions are, or could be, jointly responsible. Public pension investment, for example. A co-worker yesterday asked me, rhetorically, "Who thought it was a good idea to invest public pension dollars solely in the private sector, without government regulation? Why didn't the unions stand up and say, there needs to be a framework for how this is invested? It is the public's trust but it's governed by Wall Street." Failing to raise that question soon after the Taft-Hartley Act was passed (or any time before the Great Recession) is a factor in pensions becoming a huge liability for public employers. Wall Street treated pension funds like slush funds in ways that no state treasury could ever be abused.

In a similar vein, why are mandatory subjects of bargaining limited to wages, hours and working conditions? Why are unions NOT required to bargain about industrial and employer issues? If an employer has a problem, they currently solve it in a vaccuum without any input from the union other than (1) don't lay off our members or (2) don't cut our wages/benefits. What if an employer said, "Hey union, look at this pile-of-shit problem I have. It's yours, too. You must solve it with me." This actually happens on the boards of some Taft-Hartley benefit plans and in some labor management partnerships (and some other countries) but by and large, unions are like petulant teenagers, grieving everything and demanding bigger allowances. Outside of apprentice programs (operated separately from unions), very little thought is given to the state of the workers' crafts or the state of the industry in which they labor.

Scott Walker and the state of Ohio have actually played this wrong. By trying to eliminate collective bargainig, they've reminded workers of what they wanted all along. If Walker had demanded that the unions be jointly accountable for Wisconsin's budget problems and had them sit at the table, he either would have had a partner in solving his problems or he would have been able to demonstrate that the unions are incapable of true collective bargaining. The only party that loses that gamble is the unions themselves. . . .

Happy Labor Day!

I'm going to try to spend my Labor Day weekend not watching the funeral march of the Labor Movement that is daily passing through my life. Instead, I thought I'd share a couple of my favorite union videos:

My Life Is Now Perfect

I got all the forms to join my union yesterday, and after sending them off today, confirmed on the internets that I am a member of David Simon's old local, Washington Baltimore Newpaper Guild, CWA Local 32035. My life is now complete.

Wrong Answer

A sub-plot of the whole stimulus debate today concerns a staffer for Eric Cantor circulating a video that satirizes AFSCME, a labor union that has worked hard to push for the stimulus package. He did this, I guess, to undermine AFSCME. I put the video on this blog a while ago. I fail to see how a comic video accomplishes this goal, but whatever. (Here's a NYT piece about this drama).

This is about AFSCME President Gerald McEntee's response. Specifically he said, "Eric Cantor may think the greatest economic crisis in seventy years is a joke, but we don't. He should talk to the people in Virginia who are losing their jobs, health care and homes."

Now, that's a legitimate response, and true. But McEntee would have been better just going to the video. He should have said, "Hey, Cantor, we do take out the fucking garbage. We clean the streets, coach little league, file library books, give vaccinations, give driving tests, issue death certificates and put out your fucking fires. And unless you want those basic services to stop, you should support this fucking bill, asshole. Otherwise, local governments will just fold up shop, and your constituents will start asking you why the trash hasn't been removed." 

Just once I wish someone would just call the bluff of these Republicans and say, "Yes, we do all the work. No, a twenty-three year old banker should not make more than the President of the United States." It's really time for some good old-fashioned populism. McEntee's a brawler, he should act like one.

Stuck in My Craw

So here comes what may the boringest blog post ever. Bear with me or not, I need to get this off my chest. I promise, you will be disappointed.

Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of the D.C. public school system has gotten a lot of press lately over her proposal to create a two-tier compensation system in the District. See, for example, Time Magazine. She proposes to pay teachers up to $130,000 a year (salary and merit bonuses) if they will agree to drop tenure. In her system, tenured teachers would make their standard salary (around $65,000) in order to keep their job security, while other teachers would gamble on the higher pay by opting out of the current system. The Washington Teachers' Union has not brought this proposal to a vote, allegedly because they believe a generation gap among current teachers would create an unbreachable division.

Supposedly, Rhee's proposal is being watched with bated breath by most in the education world. She acknowledges that she wants to break the union, and nationwide, school districts are waiting to see if she can pull it off. Supposedly, her efforts are necessary because teachers just cannot be fired, because their unions always fight, and win, to keep them in their positions.

My gut reaction to this, after eight and a half years of being a union-side labor lawyer, is that this is utter and complete bullshit. I willingly acknowledge that unions occasionally (and in some cases, often) champion unpopular employees to vindicate political positions or procedural details. But that doesn't make bad employees un-fire-able. Let's look for a moment at the Washington Teachers' contract as it pertains to discipline.

3. Suspensions or discharge

In the case of suspensions, or discharge, the official taking the action shall provide the employee with advance written notice of the charge[s], which shall include a specific statement of the evidence supporting such charge[s], no later than ten (10) school days prior to the effective date of the discipline. At the option of DCPS, an employee shall either remain on the job or in pay status for the entire ten (10) day period. Within five (5) days of the receipt of the notice, the employee has the right to review all documents related to the charges and to provide a written reply along with supporting documents against the charges. The decision shall go into effect as stated unless upon consideration of all relevant facts by the official taking the action, the action is to be modified, at which time the employee and the union shall be so notified in writing of the modification. The disciplinary action or discharge shall not take effect until the requirements of this article are satisfied. All suspensions shall be administered in a manner which causes the teacher to lose no more pay than the actual days of suspension.

C. The initiation of the disciplinary action
shall be taken no later than thirty (30) school days after the supervisor’s knowledge of the alleged infraction. In cases requiring an investigation, any investigation conducted by or on behalf of DCPS into the alleged infraction shall be completed, with any investigation report provided to the employee involved and to the WTU within thirty (30) days after the supervisor’s knowledge of the alleged infraction. This time limit may be extended by mutual consent, but if not so extended, must be strictly adhered to.

There are a number of procedural hurdles described in these two sections, but I want to say two things about them: (1) they are pretty standard, although more favorable to employees than many collective bargaining agreements; (2) much of what is included is based on U.S. Constitutional law. 14th Amendment due process requires notice of intent to discipline and a hearing of the reasons for the decision (public employees have a property interest in continued employment).

The timelines are strict, but intended to prevent the employer from pissing around; if you want to take action, take action. Shit or get off the pot. It means the employer bears the burden of doing their job. And that's the rub. Much of what is described as a problem with the teachers is actually a problem with the supervisors, the district and even the precious new chancellor. If Michelle Rhee wants to know how to get rid of bad teachers, she would be well-advised to read her contract with the union. It's all spelled out there in black and white. Step one, step two, step three. The reason that the steps are particular is that the things teachers are accused of doing are highly subjective. For every complete idiot of a teacher that I have had, I can guarantee that there are 25 students who thought that teacher was brilliant. Should Ms. Mancini have gotten fired because I thought she was an utter imbecile? Maybe. But probably I was a 14-15-16 year old asshole (I had her three years in a row), and, gosh golly, here I am an educated person, and she's either retired or still teaching somewhere.

If you look at that contract, the careful steps do not apply in cases of corporal punishment, sexual harassment or abuse of a student. Mediation and respect are called for in cases involving complaints. These are appropriate. If that District doesn't want to exercise its own rights - by telling teachers that they must be in their classroom before class starts rather than at the bell, and disciplining people who fail to follow the rules - why should individual employees suffer?

This is one of the topics that kept me up late. In my disturbed half-sleep, I thought of many prescriptions for Ms. Rhee and the WTU. But now that I have read the contract, I see its all laid out for her. That Time article strongly suggests that she's only recently bothered to read her contract. If she understood it, she'd learn that employees must file their grievances within 10 days of the discipline (harder than it sounds for many people), that arbitrators are not bound by the formal rules of evidence in hearing each case, and that individual employees have no personal right to arbitration. She'd also understand that basic principles of fairness and respect underpin that relationship. It's all in there, if she only knew where to look.

What's Next for the Nascent Obama Administration

Now that I am leaving my job, I am actually becoming interested again in matters related to the Labor movement. Again last night I was up at 3:15 a.m. musing on some boring-as-sh%$ labor topic, which I will now share with you.

There was some mishegoss from labor circles about why Obama did not announce his pick for Secretary of Labor along with the rest of his economic team last week. People felt slighted and generally fear that labor will play second fiddle in the recovery. I think that latter sentiment might have some truth to it, but I think there are a couple of other factors in play.

First of all, I think Obama is going to roll out Labor, Energy and Interior together as part of his Green/Energy Initiative. Last week, he brought out his economic team together; today, he put his foreign policy team in place. Green/Energy will be next, and then Healthcare reform (Health and Human Services, Surgeon General). This is probably the order of Obama's priorities. Green/Energy gets a boost over Healthcare because it can be tied back to the economic recovery plan.

I think Labor will be placed with the Energy initiative because the message Obama wants to send is about the future of work in this country, not the past. He will be saying, essentially, that this is where the new jobs are going to be.

A second reason that Labor gets rolled out separately from the economic team, and why Obama will send a signal that this is about the future, and not the past, is that the Labor movement is in utter shambles, and there is political divisiveness in every considered potential appointee. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win are no closer to reconciliation than they were the day they split. SEIU is riven by infighting. This is going to be a tough pick, and there will be some backlash from some part of the labor movement regardless of who is chosen. I suspect Obama will unroll this closer to Christmas, or on a Friday afternoon, so no one needs to hear the complaining.

I don't have favorites for Secretary of Labor (other than, say, myself), but I do agree with Jay that Tennessee Tuxedo needs to be appointed "with all deliberate haste" to the position of Director of the National Black and White Zoo.

Why the NLRB Should Be Abolished

In case you doubt that being a union lawyer has been an almost totally futile exercise during the Bush administration, I thought I would share this story with you. An employee is talking to her co-workers during their lunch break in the hospital cafeteria about her support for the union. A manager tells her to leave, as she cannot be on the hospital premises on her day off. The worker refuses to leave, and security is called. The security officer arrives with a German Shepherd by his side and orders her to leave. The union filed a charge against the Employer for threatening, intimidating and harassing the worker for engaging in union activities. The NLRB dismisses the charge:

The Region has authorized dismissal, absent withdrawal on this allegation. The investigation failed to reveal that the guard made any threats (or statements for that matter) to the employee. There is no evidence that the dog made any motion or threatening gesture toward the employee. Finally, there is no evidence supporting a Section 8(a)(3) violation.

That's the way it works these days. The only advice we can give is, next time, put your hand in the dog's mouth so it bites you. Now excuse me, I need to return to banging my head on the table, since this brief respite to blog has permitted the blood on my forehead to clot.

Today's My SuperSpaceout Day

Don't forget to vote today, folks!

Today on the way into work, I saw a young guy with a homemade Obama sign near a busy intersection, and got completely excited and overwhelmed. Warning, corniness and sincerity ahead. I cannot remember in my short lifetime when people of all ages and races took the initiative to make signs, go downtown and sincerely proclaim their political hopes. It hasn't happened before. And I have been waiting for it for my entire adult life.

I became a union lawyer because I wanted to be of service to a movement. I was working as a community organizer in Chicago on TANF issues and police response to domestic violence, and every issue seemed to be so isolated. Every effort was focused on a narrow slice of a problem, usually for people with so many problems that biting off just, say, how police respond to DV calls was, ultimately, laughable. I thought working for the labor movement would be something bigger than that, and it is. We bite off slightly larger chunks of problems for people with slightly fewer problems. It has its moments of gratification, but they are rare, and more lip service is paid to the historical aspects of our movement than to truly reinvigorating it.

In the Obama movement, I finally feel like I have found a real movement, where people are inspired to do better not just because of their leaders but because of one another. Probably just a few months ago, I would have laughed in derision at the guy I saw driving to work. Now I want to figure out how I will spend my day encouraging people to vote. He inspired me.

I know that Obama will not "win" today. He may not even win the nomination. I think that would be unfortunate. But the worst thing that could happen would be for people who feel like I feel, like they still want to make a difference - see change in our world - stop believing that they can. I really hope we don't lose this moment, where we can inspire each other.

Please vote.

Buh-bye, Hill

Hillary Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions.

Can I go supersnark and say that even in 1992, Hillary should have known better than to dress like that?

Meanwhile, Obama's server has shut down because it was overwhelmed with supporters looking for tickets to Kennedy and Kerry rallies in the Bay Area this weekend.

Awesome

And I am not being facetious. I am genuinely pleased that the Machinists have endorsed Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary.

If you pay attention to this stuff, you may recall a feature article in the NYT magazine two years ago, juxtaposing Andy Stern (the "new boss") and Tom Buffenbarger (the "old boss"). However flattering the piece may have been to Andy, it sure wasn't flattering to Tom, portrayed, as he was, as flying around the country in a private jet while the machine shops of American were snuck down to Ciudad Juarez like the Baltimore Colts were whisked to Indianapolis, only every night.

Anyway, I wasn't left with a terribly warm impression of the man myself. BUT you have to credit him with exactly the kind of outside-the-box thinking that Stern has been advocating these past few years. Promising not to back Democrats qua Democrats, Stern has said that the labor movement should consider all candidates willing to work with Labor. Buffenbarger is the first one to actually go there. Touche.

I Am Not Alone

Thanks, KL, for your supportive comment. It's nice to know someone is reading. And since I know at least one reader ain't bored by this topic, here's a bit more. Members of the AFSCME Executive Board (7 of 33) have written an open letter to AFSCME President Gerald McEntee asking him to refrain from attacking Senator Obama and using union funds/staff to engage in public disparagement of the Senator. Noteworthy, to me, is the admission that AFSMCE endorsed Clinton primarily because they expected her to be the front runner, and wanted to back the right horse, so to speak.

This bolsters my view that Labor's beef with Obama is not that he's anti-union, but that he ain't getting bought by Labor. If we can get his support for free, then why are we begging him to take our money?

The flip side, i.e. Labor's argument, is that Obama is taking $2300 from every rich person he meets, but that teachers, firefighters, and home care workers don't have that kind of money. Unions can pool their members' money to support candidates that support issues for working people. It's an argument, but that's all it is. It isn't borne out by the practice. Politicians take money from unions, AND from rich people, and then do what they do. I think its worth trying a different way for once.

UPDATE: It looks like the members of Culinary workers local 226 agrees with me.

Everyone's a goddamn pundit

I had an irksome conversation with a law clerk in our office today where he expressed doubt that Obama even supports the Employee Free Choice Act (this legislation proposes to strengthen union organizing, and it’s a no-duh Vote Yes for Democrats). The law clerk has “inside knowledge” that Obama is not pro-union.

Obama does, in fact, support EFCA, and other pro-union, pro-working people solutions. At least, he says he does. And he did co-sponsor the damn bill in the Senate. So I did a tiny amount of research to figure out why Labor people think Obama is "the most conservative candidate on the Democratic side", at least on labor issues.

Most of the web/news coverage concerns Obama's almost-perfect record on labor issues or the fact that Obama has called out Clinton on NAFTA/CAFTA and Edwards on his refusal to condemn the right-to-work law in NC. Not exactly a right-wing smoking gun, if you ask me.

When I dug a little deeper, I found what may be the problem: Obama sent out a campaign letter where he seems to have called unions (and Emily's list) "special interests", and eschewed 527 organization's funds. DailyKos took issue (in a post that is reminiscent of the AFSCME video I posted back in March), as did Working Life and Politico.

Help me out here. How is being against "soft money funding" the exact same thing as being "anti-union"? And since when did buying politicians do shit for labor unions? Labor has been paying through the nose for years for the privilege of getting shafted over and over again. Millions of members' dues are chasing after politicians who have failed to strengthen labor laws, appoint pro-worker regulatory bodies, raise the minimum wage, stop jobs from moving overseas or borders or improve healthcare.

Labor thinks the candidates' interests are their interests. So fundraising is what Labor cares about, because that's what the candidate cares about. They lash out at another candidate who says, I want to end that kind of fundraising - as thought that were a labor issue. It's not a labor issue, it's a political issue. They hope the candidates they spend for will reciprocate, but there's no real historical basis for that hope.

Just as with the Labor's retrograde environmental views, Labor is on the wrong side on the issue of campaign finance reform. They think being able to throw their money around gets them somewhere in elections, but the reality is, they are always outspent, always outgunned, by employers and industry groups, who have more money and far less scruples about how widely they distribute it.

So I am not persuaded yet that Obama is anti-union or anti-worker. Of course, for professional reasons, I can't really share this post with anyone in my world who might be able to contradict me, but I am infuriated that "my people" are acting like mini-Joe Trippis instead of worker advocates. I think that there's a lot of sour grapes about lining up behind the wrong candidate too early, another common mistake Labor makes. Let me know if you know something different....

I Love This Sh*t

I love election days like its Christmas all over again. It's like a roller coaster where most of the day, its all ascendant. When you don't know who's winning, it's all up up up. And then usually there's the huge plunge that is so hard to take that it's nauseating. But then there's tonight, where the coaster has launched right off the rails, and the feeling in my stomach is all butterflies.

And this isn't just corny love of Obama. It's just so damn exciting that this Presidency is close to over, and there's a chance that there might be - not just relief from the awfulness - a corner could be turned.

I am excited for Obama, but I also think that even if Clinton comes out on top in the end, she will be a much stronger candidate for all of this. She has to fight for this, not just assume the throne. She has to earn this by doing something other than putting up with Bill's philandering for all those years.

And Huckabee is no shock to me at all. Timothy Egan in the NYT ("Two Buck Huck") has a good rap on how Huck got where he is. What he doesn't say is that this was implicitly predicted by Tom Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas? You had to wonder when the wingers would get sick of being chewed up and spit out. And while the Republicans are freaking out about Huckabee, denouncing him, the smart ones will get in there and just start buying up the store. Huck's gotta be buyable, right?

I didn't just write all that to show I am still a political cynic after all.

My thoughts on Edwards: I agree with his class critique, think he's a good guy, would be cool with him as a candidate. But I actually worry that his association with class issues and the labor movement prevents him from taking leadership on stuff that Labor hasn't dealt with/doesn't like. What am I talking about? Specifically, a lot of unions are at the back of the pack on environmental issues, because they see environmental regulations as anathema to job growth and bread-and-butter, rank-and-file American jobs. They want drilling in ANWAR, no fuel efficiency standards, etc. Not all of them, of course, but there just isn't a mainstream labor-environment platform out there that I hear from Edwards. And just as I am tired of 7 years of anti-worker bullshit from Bush, I am also tired from 7 years of sharp-edged, soft-minded, cannibalistic class rhetoric.

Maybe I just need a sabbatical.

Oh, And

I managed to write something over at The Union Lawyer today, in case you are catatonically bored and in need of some digression.

NFL Players and Pigeon Poop

Whew, I have a lot to say today.

First of all, I read this article which sent me a mini-bender, so much so that I sent a letter to Howard Bryant, the columnist. Here's what I said:

Mr. Bryant: A friend forwarded your column to me today, wondering what I thought. I am an attorney representing unions, but not the NFL Players Association. Here’s what I said:

He’s wrong:

“The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players. The union's message should be that a commissioner cannot simply do whatever he wants.”

The union represents all of its members, not just individuals. Without a union, a worker, including a football player, is an at-will employee. With a union, a worker is not guaranteed absolute job security. The restriction on the employer is that disciplinary action will be taken “for just cause” and not out of favoritism, personal animosity or discriminatorily. But “just cause” has some meaning, and in the context of the NFL, the employer may have decided that Vick’s actions are so abhorrent that they warrant termination for just cause. Criminal behavior certainly hits that mark. The decision then rests with the union whether to grieve that disciplinary action or not. The union’s duty is a duty of fair representation, which means that their decision cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. This is a low standard that gives a union a great deal of discretion about which issues they wish to pursue on behalf of their members as a whole. Clearly the union can agree not fight a losing battle, in the interest of protecting a good and open relationship with an employer (which is in fact a goal of mature labor relations) and in the interest of protecting their other members. NFL players have a lot of impunity, rarely being called to task for their criminal conduct, but that could change, in the media, in culture on a hot dime. By staking a position that there is some behavior which is too terrible to protect, the union softens the blow for other players who are under scrutiny for “lesser” offenses (putting aside how many of these “lesser” offenses involve domestic violence), and lets the union defend them without a public outcry.

Not exactly Mencken, I know. Maybe I will put this over at The Union Lawyer so no one will have to read it.

In other news, pigeon shit may be a contributing factor in the Minneapolis bridge collapse. There is SO MUCH to worry about in this world.

Don't Call It A Comeback

Don't forget to check in on Ryan.

Also, I am making a half-hearted stab to keep The Union Lawyer current-ish again. This urge may pass once I get something interesting to do.

And speaking of current-ish, Executive Orc House has some excellent movie reviews today. Since I don't actually get to see new movies, I am glad to live vicariously.

The Defense Rests

When a friend of mine recently slagged the Aramark staff at the Coliseum (see Executive Orc House. I can't link because I'm "liveblogging" from the beer line), I was half-inspired to defend these off-proud union members 'o mine. But now that I have missed one whole inning and have moved 3 inches ONLY because other outraged consumers have quit the line, I will join the chorus (of one) naysayers in hating the Coliseum crap-slingers.

We Work for You

As you can imagine, while "labor humor" is not exactly an oxymoron, it's close, but I got this clip today, and it made me chuckle.



Enjoy.