Details of the deal

Details of the hard fought deal are starting to leak out. First, the NYT's story this morning:

The contract’s main feature — a health care trust called a voluntary employee benefit association, or VEBA — means that G.M. will no longer have to carry the debt it will owe for employee and retiree health care benefits on its books. Earlier this year, G.M.’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, referred to those obligations as “very large and frankly formidable.”

That debt is estimated at $55 billion for the next 80 years. So G.M. will establish the trust with about 70 percent of that amount, making an upfront payment of cash, stock and other assets. The difference is expected to come from gains on investments by the trust.

In return, the union won guarantees that medical benefits for hourly workers and retirees and their families will remain in place for the next two years. G.M. will also invest money in its American plants, and will maintain its current union work force of 73,000, according to Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W. president.

And the Free Press has these details:

• Workers will receive no wage increases, but will each receive a $3,000 signing bonus, plus annual lump-sum bonuses of 3% or 4% for the final three years of the contract. The UAW also agreed to divert a portion of future wage increases to pay for health care for both active and retired workers, those sources said.

• GM will make more than 4,000 temporary workers permanent employees, a move that stands to increase UAW membership.

• The automaker will implement a two-tier wage and benefits scale for jobs that GM and the UAW have agreed are "non-core" production jobs. Those jobs are expected to include many positions in which workers do not have their hands on a vehicle in the assembly process. In addition, GM is expected to offer a targeted special attrition program to move workers in those non-core jobs off the active worker member rolls. Wages and benefits for second-tier workers will average $27 per hour, compared with the average $73 per hour of current workers, the sources said.

• Gettelfinger said the agreement includes modifications to the controversial jobs bank, which provides unemployed workers with full pay as they wait for job openings. The modification includes an expansion of the area in which workers would be required to move for a different assignment or lose their income. Currently, workers are not required to move for jobs farther than 50 miles from their previous plants.

There is mixed emotions about the deal, especially that two-tier structure. It's something a lot of people weren't talking about as negotiations got more and more intense, but now that it's become a reality, it's kind of splash of cold water.

"I hate it," Jason Craig, a 34-year-old Chrysler worker, bluntly said Wednesday after hearing about the UAW deal with GM.

Craig works at a Chrysler parts warehouse in Center Line. For two nights he had stopped and walked the picket line with GM strikers at a powertrain plant in Warren.

"These guys that walked off that line at 11 o'clock" Monday morning, Craig said, "I tip my hat to them."

At least one part of the deal has him upset. He fears the two-tier wage system in the tentative deal with GM could be carried over to Chrysler and affect his job. Hourly employees not directly related to making cars and trucks could receive lower pay and benefits under the contract.

Even if his job is not directly affected, Craig, a New Baltimore resident, said he would not approve a contract that creates two tiers of wages and benefits.

He backs his union and Gettelfinger, but this part of the deal undermines the union, he said.

"There's no solidarity in that," Craig said about the two-tier system. "If we have another strike and we have one guy making $15 an hour and another guy making $30 an hour, I guarantee you he's not going to walk out as fast as me."

But I think this quote encompasses what the union was fighting for:

Faust's father moved from Tennessee to Michigan in the late 1940s to work in a Chrysler Corp. foundry. The new contract gives the next generation a chance to keep things going, he said.

"We fight not just for ourselves, but we fight for the young people coming behind us," Faust said. "This is middle-class employment, and we want to keep it that way."

"They may have underestimated the union's resolve"

Despite all the outsourcing and early buyouts that thinned active ranks, GM should have known what it was dealing with:

General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers are close to an agreement on a new contract that would end a two-day strike by 73,000 workers at the biggest U.S. automaker, five people briefed on the talks said... An accord to halt GM's first national strike in 37 years may be announced as early as today...

The framework for an agreement for the UAW to assume an estimated $50 billion in future union retiree medical costs in exchange for a one-time payment from GM had already been mostly complete, according to the people. Bargainers spent the last two days on issues such as health care for active workers and reduced pension and retiree benefits for new hires, the people said.

"GM may have realized that the strike could go on for a while, that they underestimated the union's resolve,'' said Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "The key is that GM must have a commitment on future products and jobs,'' he said. "That's the linchpin that converts whatever sacrifices are made into future benefits for UAW workers.''

Gettelfinger and Co. didn't let management play chicken with them. They were practically dared to strike, and they did. And GM, either fearing the repercussions of a strike already being supported by the Canadian UAW and the Teamsters, among others, going a long time, or perhaps knowing they were asking for the sun and the moon, is looking ready to concede what they were seemingly unwilling to just a few days ago.

Or maybe they were afraid of this:

EDWARDS TO JOIN STRIKING AUTO WORKERS ON PICKET LINE IN BUFFALO

Buffalo, New York – Tomorrow, Senator John Edwards will join striking auto workers from U.A.W. Local 774 on a picket line outside of the General Motors Powertrain Plant in Buffalo, New York. On Monday, 73,000 U.A.W. members walked off the job after contract negotiations with General Motors reached a stalemate.

It's amazing what standing up to these people can do.

Solidarity

While it may affect their workload, and consequently, their wages, its good to see that there will be no ancillary picket crossing from the Teamsters:

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters will not deliver General Motors Corp. (GM) cars while the United Auto Workers stages a nationwide strike against the U.S. auto maker.

In a press release issued following the UAW's decision to kick off a strike Monday, the Teamsters said it will "stand with" the UAW by not crossing "a UAW picket line...Our 10,000 automotive transport members will not deliver GM cars" from plants to dealerships in the U.S.

Teamsters spokeswoman Leslie Miller said the Teamsters handles delivery of GM cars from plants to dealers. She said the auto maker may try to get help from non-Teamsters-represented delivery services but it may find trouble finding nonunion people with needed capabilities.

"Workers should not solely bear the brunt of decades of bad business decisions by GM management," Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said. "By outsourcing good jobs and creating a growing environment of economic and job insecurity, GM has failed its workers and its customers."

This is especially significant, given that the Teamsters are part of the Change to Win federation that broke off from the AFL-CIO two years ago. Not that I expected anything else, but it's good to know there will be no meaningful inaction.

Strike

It's come down to this:

United Auto Workers members walked out of General Motors Corp. plants shortly after 10 a.m. Monday as negotiations for a four-year contract reached an impasse 10 days after the previous contact expired.

The strike, the first against GM since 1998, came after the two sides appeared close Sunday night to historic changes in the contract concerning health care and other benefits. Few observers had expected a strike because it comes as Asian automakers are grabbing bigger shares of the U.S. market and could be damaging to both sides.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union walked out because GM "has failed to recognize and appreciate what our membership has contributed during the past four years."

The union and GM reportedly had agreed on a plan to transfer responsibility for GM's $51 billion health care liability for retirees to a union-run trust fund but were unable to settle on wages and job security issues.

Workers at GM's plant in Janesville, Wis., started picketing outside the massive facility shortly after 10 a.m., halting work on assembly lines that build large sport-utility vehicles such as the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban.

"If they think I'm going to take a wage cut and pay more for health care, they're dreaming," said Dave Van fossen, a 48-year-old worker at the plant. "My utilities just went up 14 percent and everything else is going up. Why would I accept a pay cut?"

The part of the article I didn't excerpt:

An extended strike could slow or derail a turnaround effort at GM that had produced three straight quarters of profit after two years of massive losses. GM has eliminated more than 150,000 UAW jobs the last two years and could cut more if it decides to close more U.S. plants.

No mention of the damage a strike would do to the union's members, and how they're soldiering on despite it, looking for fairness. Poor GM, not getting a solution to their mess on a silver platter.

T-Minus 10

D-Day, eleven hundred hours:

The UAW announced today that due to the failure of General Motors to address job security and other mandatory issues of bargaining, the union has set a firm strike deadline for 11 a.m. on Monday, Sept. 24.

“We’re shocked and disappointed that General Motors has failed to recognize and appreciate what our membership has contributed during the past four years,” said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. “Since 2003 our members have made extraordinary efforts every time the company came to us with a problem: the corporate restructuring, the attrition plan, the Delphi bankruptcy, the 2005 health care agreement. In every case, our members went the extra mile to find reasonable solutions.

“Throughout this time period," said Gettelfinger, "it has been the dedication of UAW members that has helped GM set new standards for safety, quality and productivity in their manufacturing facilities. And in this current round of bargaining, we did everything possible to negotiate a new contract, including an unprecedented agreement to stay at the bargaining table nine days past the expiration of the previous agreement.”

“This is our reward: a complete failure by GM to address the reasonable needs and concerns of our members,” said UAW Vice President Cal Rapson, director of the union's GM Department. “Instead, in 2007 company executives continued to award themselves bonuses while demanding that our members accept a reduced standard of living.

“The company’s disregard for our members has forced our bargaining committee to take this course of action,” said Rapson. “Unless UAW members hear otherwise between now and the deadline, we will be on a national strike against GM at 11 a.m. EDT on Monday, Sept. 24th.”

The UAW negotiating team will remain at the bargaining table, Rapson said, throughout the night and up until the 11 a.m. deadline.

Despite every single media report stressing just how important it is that the big bad UAW needs to help poor GM out from underneath its crushing healthcare costs, its hard to argue with all the effort and help the union has given to the big dumb giant in recent years. Oh, not to mention that GM OWES the union members that healthcare. Let's not forget that as things begin to get really contentious.

End game?

Final lap?:

Negotiators for General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers were close to finalizing the details of a new contract Sunday after 20 straight days of talks, according to a local union official who is being briefed on the discussions.

The two sides have wrapped up work on most issues and were down to determining how much money GM must put into a trust fund for retiree health care that will be managed by the UAW, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are private. The official expected a final deal could be reached as early as Sunday evening, although others said it could take longer.

"My sense is they are close. I think this is the end game," said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in labor issues and has been closely following the talks. "They may be approaching a resolution, but if that's in the next two hours or the next two days, it's hard to say. There are a lot of complex issues yet to be resolved."

Of course, wasn't the amount of money going into the VEBA pretty much THE main issue in the first place? Maybe they're closer on a consensus number, or maybe the question is this:

Other key issues that remain to be clarified include how GM funds its VEBA contribution and whether the UAW deal allows the automaker to issue stock or tap its over-funded pension for some of the amount.

Earlier this year, the UAW agreed to a VEBA for bankrupt auto supplier Dana Corp funded at 71 percent of its liabilities, a level considered to be a benchmark in the GM talks.

Part of the funding for the VEBA could also come from cost-of-living increases that would otherwise have been paid to active workers. The UAW has allowed such transfers to pay for health care in contracts going back over 25 years.

The article also points out how much leverage it would give the UAW in the fight for the future of health insurance nation-wide. With over a million people in its risk pool, that's a significant chit to play in negotiations with big HMO's and the Republicans (and unfortunately, Democrats) they fund politically. Imagine those 1.2 million people in the VEBA buying into John Edwards' public run, Medicare-like plan.

That being said, the union has to make sure it gets enough money to fund the VEBA in the first place, as healthcare costs keep rising. From earlier reports, it didn't sound like GM was too excited about funding even that 71% that Goodyear, in much worse shape, put down.

And, they have to measure future production plant promises, as well. Those are the two most important things, clearly, and GM is playing them off each other. How the next President handles healthcare is a wild card, and one the UAW cannot play incorrectly. Do they take less VEBA funding anticipating some kind of universal healthcare? Remember, Edwards and Hillary (stealing from Edwards) will be requiring employers to pay for healthcare as a large part of the plan, so the VEBA exonerates GM, Chrysler and Ford from that requirement. Do they hope price controls send the price down enough, or that workers will qualify for a good chunk of assistance when it comes to the sliding premiums they will offer? I'd imagine that the public plan will be the one chosen by the UAW if the Edwards (and I guess Hillary) plan goes through.

So, how do you measure that against actually keeping jobs here? It'll be interesting to see what balance they strike.

Viva la VEBA no longer?

GM's inflexible greediness is shooting them in the foot:

General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers are discussing alternatives to a proposed union-run retiree health-care fund after the two sides couldn't agree on how much money GM would provide, three people with knowledge of the talks said.

"It's a terrific setback,'' said Sean McAlinden, an analyst with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. "Without the trust fund on retiree health, the first thing GM is going to offer is a massive, rapid offshoring of GM production and jobs.''

GM has asked the UAW to consider requiring new union members to replace the current pension with a 401(k) retirement savings plan and accept a fixed amount of health-care funds each year once they retire, people familiar with the proposal said earlier this week. GM also is asking all workers to accept a freeze in cost-of-living allowances and other concessions, people familiar with the talks said.

In return, the automaker has offered incentives such as a cap on out-of-pocket health-care expenses for retired and active workers and give lump-sum bonuses to employees for ratifying the contract, the people said.

And Forbes says:

Now under discussion is a second offer from GM that doesn't include the trust but has larger cost cuts, including a drop in hourly wages, increased health care contributions, fewer guarantees of new work at U.S. factories, reduced vacation time and other items.

But, not so fast, from the same Forbes article:

GM spokesman Tom Wickham would not comment on the VEBA developments. UAW spokesman Roger Kerson declined to comment.

On Thursday morning, a local union leader who also had been briefed on the talks said the VEBA was discussed by UAW bargainers on Wednesday.

"The VEBA's on the table. They're looking at the numbers right now," said the official, who also requested anonymity because the talks are private.

So, what it comes down to is a fight over how big the lump sum will be, as well as how GM will help out if healthcare costs keep rising like crazy. I guess saving 25% on healthcare costs and totally shifting responsibility to the union, which will have significant operating costs to run the VEBA, isn't enough. And now they're showing their true colors, looking to offshore jobs and cut other benefits.

What happened to negotiating in good faith? And now, if the UAW does go on strike, don't think the media won't portray it as them being hot headed and bringing potential ruin to the country. Bank on it.

Talking VEBA all night long

Slow but meaningful progress, with a breakfast break?

Bargainers for General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers took a break early Monday amid optimism that they are getting closer to reaching a critical contract agreement.

Negotiations came to an end just before 3 a.m. after a marathon 16-hour session on Sunday and Monday, said GM spokesman Tom Wickham.

''GM and the UAW have agreed to take a break, and talks will resume later this morning. We aren't going to comment or speculate on the nature or content of the discussions,'' Wickham said.

He said that all employees were expected to report for work at their scheduled times on Monday.

... One of the local union leaders who asked not to be identified said the main outstanding issues were retiree health care expenses and whether GM would promise to build new vehicles at UAW-represented factories. GM wants the union to take over responsibility for retiree health care costs using a company-funded trust. The UAW was asking for job guarantees in exchange for taking on the costs.

I love that every report says that one of the "last sticking points" is healthcare, especially retirees. Wasn't that THE major sticking point the entire time?

As expected, VEBA is the name of the game. Here's the Detroit Free Press's analysis of the situation:

How much money is involved?

Even the details involve billions. GM reports about $64 billion in health care obligations, more than $50 billion of which is believed to be future retiree health costs. The Detroit Three total is about $112 billion in long-term benefit obligations, of which maybe $100 billion relates to UAW retiree health care.

A key point is how much money GM and the others would contribute to the creation of a trust. People familiar with the talks say GM proposed paying no more than 65% of its estimated liability into a fund. Analysts say union leaders want more than 70%. Against a $50-billion liability, even a 5% gap is worth $2.5 billion.

What about the risks of managing all that money?

Other VEBAs, including one at Caterpillar in 2005, have run out of money before they had provided the benefits they were expected to cover.

Michael Shamhart, 49, an electrician at Lordstown Assembly in Ohio, said he believes active workers will have to give up future raises to support a VEBA, that retirees will have to pay a larger share of their health costs, or both.

Like many workers, he also expressed concern that a VEBA, no matter the level of initial funding, could eventually run out of money.

Would the UAW create a single, huge fund, or individual funds for each company?

People close to the talks say the discussion has been framed as if it would be one VEBA that all three U.S. automakers would pay into.

The UAW, perhaps through a board of directors, will need to hire its own staff to make sure the health funds are being properly managed and invested, people familiar with VEBAs and health-care administration said. Those people asked not to be named because they are not intimately involved in the union's decision making and did not want to risk the loss of contracts for speculating about such a structure.

The creation of three VEBAs would cost more, requiring the union to hire more people and add duplicate administrative tasks.

However, establishing two or three VEBAs might eliminate problems managing the benefits available to members, should economic arrangements with the automakers differ.

UAW has been working to secure VEBA funding increases if the cost of healthcare rises more than estimated, clearly something that has been going on for the last decade or so. For their part, GM is looking for a refund of sorts if a national universal healthcare plan is created. No indication of whether that refund would come with increases in other benefits or more hirings. Still, looks like this contract could be impacted in large part by the 2008 election.

As for union rank and file sentiment on the VEBA, maybe this letter in the New York Times this morning will give you some indication about members' feelings on the whole thing. It was written by Paul Schrade, Warren Davis, and Jerry Tucker, former UAW Regional Directors & International Executive Board Members:

Brothers & Sisters ,

We are writing to express our grave concerns over reports that consideration is being given by UAW negotiators in contract talks with GM, Ford, & Chrysler to a union-managed Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA health care trust fund to cover hundreds of thousands of retired autoworkers.

Such a proposal, if ratified as part of a new collective agreement, would represent a radical shift in the traditions of our union. Knowingly placing members at risk under such a plan, whether active or retired, is contrary to the mandate of the UAW Constitution and its "Objects." It would undo decades of hard won healthcare benefit protections, paid for in large part by wage diversions, past concessions, and increased worker productivity...

It is also disturbing that a major change of this significance and impact has not been the subject of extensive discussion and debate within the union. The corporate proposed VEBA, which the union negotiators are said to be reviewing, is only now being revealed to the rank and file membership and much of the local union leadership by media reports, and sketchy ones at that. Yet the potential consequences of adopting such a plan will be economically painful, if not disastrous, to those covered by it. A number of factors could adversely affect its viability. Secrecy and uninformed members on this question can only further damage the shared principles we were founded to defend and advance as a union.

Previously negotiated health care protections, along with 30-and-Out Pensions, Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB), Tuition Refunds, and many other benefits where the result of an extensive open internal debate within the union. In several instances, the debate went on for several years before UAW bargainers were authorized to negotiate them into the agreement between the parties.

The three signers of this letter represent six decades of critical experience and involvement within the UAW. We have been an active part of its ascendancy and, in recent years, sad witnesses to its decline. We do not minimize the assault UAW members and all U.S. workers have been under or the challenges our union has faced. But we do respectfully submit that the appropriate counter-proposal to the corporate bailout by way of a VEBA is a UAW demand that 2005's Attachment E "Health Care Reform Letter" be implemented and the corporations become a moving force on the public policy front for the enactment of the current universal, comprehensive, single-payer healthcare legislation contained in H...R. 676, introduced by Michigan Congressman John Conyers.

That such a national health care system would serve the auto companies self-interest and level the competitive playing field is well documented. The companies extol the economic value of the Canadian system. Our role as a union, in behalf of our members and the community at large, is not to help them escape their responsibility to their past commitments but to help them convert those commitments to the common good. On that proposal, our members are informed, and they will stand behind you.

Fraternally,

Former UAW Regional Directors:

Paul Schrade - Region 6

Warren Davis - Region 2

Jerry Tucker - Region 5

Again, it all comes down to politics. And like I said in my previous post, why any corporation that offers healthcare to its employees, especially companies that deal heavily with unions like the Big Three, is not fighting tooth and nail for national universal coverage, is beyond me. I guess it's just down to its basic anti-worker instinct, whether its in its self interest or not.

Still Pluggin Along

Late nights in Detroit:

After resuming contract talks mid-morning Saturday, General Motors Corp. and the UAW continued to make progress -- so much, in fact, that several subcommittees have already settled some of their issues, people familiar with the talks said Saturday.

“Some of them are finished up,” Chris (Tiny) Sherwood, president of UAW Local 652 at GM’s Lansing Grand River plant, which makes Cadillac cars and SUVs, told the Free Press late Saturday afternoon.

While a substantial amount of work remains, Sherwood, like others, did not expect an agreement by Saturday night.

But the news out of downtown Detroit, where the talks have been ongoing for eight weeks, was encouraging enough that Sherwood, a 40-year UAW member, decided to temporarily close up his local’s standby strike operation.

His local had hundreds of picket signs printed that read “UAW on Strike,” and several members had been staying at the office late into the night, ready to trigger a telephone chain to members to quickly launch a strike.

“We’re going to shut down here right now,” said Sherwood, who has lived through three strikes.

With the VEBA being a seeming inevitability, perhaps it was smart for Gettelfinger and co. to quickly accept the premise and fight like dogs to make it as equitable as possible:

GM executives have long indicated an interest in creating a health care trust, and within the last two weeks, people close to the talks said, Gettelfinger has expressed a willingness to negotiate one.

Two of the main sticking points to creating a VEBA are how much money GM would contribute to the creation of a trust and the source of the assets, labor experts said. People familiar with the talks say GM proposed paying no more than 65% of its estimated liability into a fund. Analysts said union leaders want more than 70%.

They said the automaker would use a combination of cash, stock, real estate and proceeds from new borrowing.

“My sense is that an agreement on the VEBA is there, but that becomes meaningless unless they can agree on the terms,” said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert from University of California at Berkeley, who has been in contact with union members.

“It’s like agreeing to purchase a house -- all you have to do is agree on the price. Well, that’s a big deal.”

Another tough negotiating point has been whether the parties would be willing to share the burden or benefit of future changes in health costs. The UAW wants GM to agree to add money to the trust if costs grow faster than expected. GM wants a refund if costs aren’t as great as expected or a national health care program diminishes the retiree health care burden, analysts and others said.

I just don't get out GM could expect to relieve itself of some of the health burden without paying a real significant chunk up front. Saving even 25% in the long run seems a real deal for them.

Another thing that scratches at the underlying issue of healthcare and business; GM is negotiating for a refund if a national universal healthcare plan is put into place. They're putting into contingency plans what has long been the business community's sworn enemy, universal healthcare, and trying to negotiate a victory out of it. Even in a plan like Edwards', the most progressive of the '08 contenders (outside of Kucinich), GM is conceding that companies would actually have to pay less for healthcare than they do now. And, as we've been beaten over the head with repetition of this fact, healthcare costs are the number one cost per car for the big three (I won't get into the whole competitiveness of the product right now).

So, I beg, are these companies not coming out full force for true universal healthcare? It would only lower their costs, make them more competitive, and make things a hell of a lot easier with the union. But I guess it's just impossible to work toward a common goal with someone you've treated with such hostility and disregard over the years.

Also, just wanted to note the WaPo's coverage of the negotiations; they can't seem to wait even a second longer than the facts require to start fanning strike fires. Here's the third paragraph of their newest story, and note that the first two are one and two sentences, respectively:

"This way, they need no notice to call a strike," said Harley Shaiken, a professor at University of California at Berkeley specializing in labor issues. "It keeps the pressure on the negotiators on both sides of the table to get a deal."

Meanwhile, the Free Press mentions a strike; but as the chunk I quoted from earlier showed, it was about the strike being possibly averted, not imminent.

I guess its sometimes hard for people on a national scale to understand that unions aren't just about going on strike and potentially damaging their poor companies.

Crunch Time

Midnight tonight, the UAW's contract with the big three runs out, and negotiations have yet to produce a new agreement. Ford and Chrysler have extended the contract indefinitely, but GM, the biggest dunce of them all, may be in danger of inciting a strike.

Union officials said they were told to expect a telephone call from Detroit about 10 p.m. EDT telling them whether they should strike or stay on the job.

The UAW chose GM as its lead company and possible strike target Thursday. Typically, the union negotiates a contract with the lead company and then presses the other two Detroit automakers to accept the same terms. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC have extended their contracts indefinitely, although talks are continuing and either side could break off the contract extension with three days' notice.

The UAW could strike GM after the midnight deadline, or the two sides could continue negotiating and workers would be covered by the terms of the old contract. Jim Graham, the president of UAW Local 1112 in Lordstown, Ohio, said his local union was awaiting word from the union and was ready to strike at midnight Friday.

"We are already set. Everything's in motion," Graham said.

Now, a short strike might not be too damaging, and may have the effect of lowering GM's stock of their shitty truck series. But it's important the UAW doesn't blink; a bad deal could set the stage for years of bad deals to come, for them and the rest of labor.

No surprises here

GM, I guess assuming the ball is totally in their court, has laid out two major direction options for the contract:

General Motors Corp in its contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers union has proposed one option that excludes establishing a union-run healthcare trust but calls for deeper cuts in several areas, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

That option is one of two proposals GM has put on the table, with the other being establishing such a healthcare trust, which would be funded by GM cash, debt and possibly stock, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the proposals.

Great. The one commodity you can really count on: GM debt.

And while talks have obviously centered on healthcare, there is more to it, including plant closings; mostly plants that produce the SUV's and trucks that the big three stubbornly continued to pursue construction of.

Those at risk, various experts told the Free Press, include GM's SUV plant in Moraine, Ohio, where more than 2,000 workers build the Chevy Trailblazer and similar models, and Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario, plant, where more than 2,400 workers build the Crown Victoria and similar models.

Chrysler is exploring the sale of Chrysler Transport -- which employs fewer than 1,000 workers and has terminals in Detroit, Ohio and Canada -- and certain parts-related operations, such as warehousing and packaging, though not the entire performance-oriented brand, the Free Press has reported.

...

But Ford's Way Forward 2006 restructuring plan left a lot of details undisclosed, leaving a lot of room for negotiation at the bargaining table.

Ford's revival plan for North America, which was first announced in January 2006 and revamped in September, calls for closing 16 plants, eliminating 44,000 jobs and revamping the car and truck lineup with the goal of profitability in 2009.

But Ford hasn't named six of the plants yet to close, including two assembly and four parts plants.

Yeah, um, that could be an issue.

But all this is moot if this is really the case:

Sources close to union negotiators said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is reluctant to sign off on a VEBA -- and the automakers are hesitant to give the union what it wants, namely the promise of job security, in exchange for a deal.

That's negotiating, gentlemen. This whole thing is sounding more and more like 2005 all over again.

Changing Tactics to Survive

In most Big Three negotiations, the UAW picks one of GM, Chrysler or Ford to negotiate a model contract with, and then works to apply it to talks with the other two companies. But with the talks so dire, and the companies in such different places, the UAW leadership is popping in the Everything but the Girl remix album "Adapt or Die", and heeding its message on both its own negotiators and those representing the automakers (okay, maybe they aren't listening to the English alt-pop-dance duo, but the message certainly applies).

This time, in order to get the most out of the richer companies without destroying the poorest, they're changing tactics:

The United Auto Workers union appears to be simultaneously crafting new labor contracts with each of the three Detroit automakers, a break from traditional tactics but one motivated by a desire to keep the financially strapped American companies alive.

Detroit automakers in the past have competed for the position of lead company in the contract talks, viewing it as an opportunity to fashion an agreement that put crosstown rivals on the defensive. With this year's contract talks heading into a final two-week stretch, sources close to the talks say the UAW is being careful to complete a deal that doesn't worsen the problems of any one company, especially Ford.

One thing all three automakers agree with (especially GM), however, is that the key to any deal is the union taking on responsibility for health benefits in what is called a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association, or VEBA, in which each of the big three dumping a lump sum portion of owed benefit payments into a trust fund operated by the union; this was the basis of the Delphi and Goodyear agreements. Which has members worried, and leaders releasing statements like this:

The United Auto Workers' top negotiator on its General Motors Corp.'s bargaining team vowed that retirees won't have to pay more for their health care in the next national contract.

"I can tell you one thing, we are determined not to put any more costs on retirees for their health care," said Cal Rapson, UAW vice-president, during a Saturday afternoon speech given to hundreds of UAW members, retirees and their supporters, at the Sloan Museum. Rapson, and UAW president Ron Gettelfinger attended the opening of a labor exhibit at the Flint museum.

Now, a lot of the talk coming from big three corporate headquarters is that the labor costs, ie. pay and benefits, for its long-term unionized workforce, is sky-high compared to those of the non-unionized Japanese automakers, and is irrevocably hurting their bottom lines.

Put aside the superior for this expensive gasoline era product that Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai put out, there is merit to this complaint. And in an attempt to bolster their ranks, assist the lower paid workers at those plants and get a piece of what have become the world's largest and most profitable automakers, the UAW is also working to even the playing the field for the big three that they must help drag to viability by re-starting with new energy organizing drives at Toyota, etc..

Recently, the company has taken a harder line on wages and labor costs, giving union organizers what they perceive as an opening. Just last week, Toyota told workers in Kentucky they would have to start paying a premium for health insurance for family members.

And over the last few months, Toyota management has summoned small groups of workers here to attend a presentation described by executives as a routine update for workers.

They are shown a map with the locations of shuttered Big Three auto plants and a breakdown of auto workers' average wages, from Thailand to Mexico. While no Toyota executive explicitly says it, the theme of the presentation, according to workers who have seen it, is that Toyota will end up in the same troubled waters as GM if something does not change.

"That doesn't sit well," said Charles Hite, who works on the loading dock at the Georgetown plant and has been with Toyota for 15 years. "They want people to fear losing their jobs."

Hite said that before one of the presentations recently, he gave to his colleagues copies of a news article about the millions of dollars in bonuses Toyota executives received this year. A Toyota supervisor asked him to stop, he said.

Hmm. Sounds like Employee Free Choice Act could have been of some assistance there. T-Minus 8 days until the UAW contract with the big three expires. This weekend should be crunch time.

First dog food, and now toy dogs

Maybe when Michael Vick gets out of jail, he can go play for some Chinese manufacturers, because there seems to be a clear pattern in their attitude towards dogs... oh, and children. At least we're also outsourcing our recalls.

For the third time this summer, Mattel issued a major recall, telling parents yesterday to watch out for Chinese-made toys with excessive amounts of lead, including locomotive toys and accessories for its iconic Barbie brand.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission said the company is recalling 773,900 toys. Mattel said it discovered the use of lead-based paint as part an ongoing investigation of the toys it gets from China and once again found that contractors had used uncertified paint. "We apologize again to everyone affected and promise that we will continue to focus on ensuring the safety and quality of our toys," Robert A. Eckert, Mattel's chief executive, said in a statement. The contractors that used the uncertified paint no longer work for Mattel, the statement said.

The company is recalling 675,000 Barbie accessories, including Barbie Dream Puppy House, in which lead paint was found on the dog, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The recall also includes 8,900 Big Big World 6-in-1 Bongo Band toys and about 90,000 Geo Trax locomotive toys. The products were sold from September 2006 to last month.

Happy Labor Day! Celebrate by scrapping together to buy at Wal-Mart the poisonous toys you used to manufacture until your job got sent overseas!

Edwards to get huge endorsements?

While Hillary got Transportation workers and Machinists, and Dodd the Firefighters, all good pickups, it looks like John Edwards is about to pick up a few of the major union endorsements that were seen as potentially reticent to endorse him given Clinton's poll dominance.

Today, word is the Carpenters endorsed Edwards:

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America endorsed Democratic candidate John Edwards for President at a closed door executive board meeting this week. With over 500,000 carpenters and tradespeople, the union is a huge pick-up for Edwards - especially in light of the Fire Fighters endorsement for Dodd and the UTU endorsement of Clinton. The union's public announcement will likely come the first week of September at an event in New Hampshire according to a source who read an internal memo announcing the decision.

And the Wall Street Journal says more are coming soon:

Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, which represents 450,000 hotel and apparel workers, said yesterday he favors former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and expects an endorsement soon. "The presidential process is moving more rapidly than ever before. If you want to influence the choice for the Democratic candidate, you've got to move sooner rather than later."

Mr. Edwards also has strong support from the Service Employees International Union and the United Steelworkers.

Steelworkers would be helpful in Michigan, who are trying to move up its primary to early January. UAW is the big prize there. UNITE HERE is a powerhouse in Nevada, representing all the hotel and culinary workers in Las Vegas and Reno. And the SEIU is constantly growing in influence everywhere.

Let the games begin.

Endorsements trickling in

The International Association of Fire Fighters on Tuesday endorsed Chris Dodd for President:

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, has a new way of going for the gut.

His 281,000-member union will promote U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd by bringing him to as many firehouses as possible - and that means "we're going to bring the candidate to the chili feeds," Schaitberger said.

Let the voters come - "we're gonna feed 'em," he said.

He recalled Dodd's legislative history - the senator has led the fight for major bills to help firefighters win more funding - and said members value Dodd's experience.

Now, Dodd and Schaitberger will travel to key electoral states and see how much voters value the firefighters' method of wooing them.

They plan to start at Firehouse 3 in Iowa City today, followed by stops in Des Moines and Council Bluffs. Friday, they move on to New Hampshire, and then head for Nevada Saturday.

It's certainly not the biggest union, nor perhaps the most prominent, but the IAFF is a politically powerful organization. They were the one union that endorsed John Kerry before his Iowa win, and they were with him at all times throughout the campaign, in as many campaign photos and events as possible.

Now, that may have been a unique time for firefighters, given the prominence they played and the unbelievable bravery they showed on and after 9/11. That's still politically viable, but given the unfortunate political exhaustion of 9/11, the endorsement may not be as potent. Still, a surprise coup for Dodd.

Next came United Transportation Workers for Hillary:

The United Transportation Union, representing 125,000 active and retired bus and railroad workers, gave Clinton its support, the first of 55 AFL-CIO affiliates to announce its 2008 choice.

"The UTU has a long history of picking winners early," said its president, Paul Thompson, in a statement e-mailed by Clinton's campaign. "Time and again, as a United States senator, she has stood with us."

Just minutes ago, another endorsement for Hillary:

From NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro: Clinton, per her campaign, has just picked up her second labor union endorsement this week -- from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

IAMAW is a 700,000 person union that, for the first time, is also endorsing a Republican, since a much higher percentage of their workers vote for the GOP (100,000+ members). The only Republican to accept their invitation, they also endorsed Huckabee today.

Cause and Effect

Today provided a nice little double dip of corporate-waged class warfare news, even including a neat little cause and effect example.

First, Cause:

The Teamsters said the union had been told by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the agency intends to begin a pilot program Saturday that will allow thousands of long-haul trucks from Mexico to roll beyond a designated zone in Texas and other border states to cities throughout the country.

"What a slap in the face to American workers – opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," said Jim Hoffa, general president of the Teamsters....

... The one-year pilot program is part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.

It would allow 100 U.S. companies to send their trucks into Mexico and 100 Mexican carriers to dispatch trucks on U.S. highways. Critics contend that it is unsafe because Mexican trucks and drivers do not meet U.S. standards.

A Transportation Department report released this month questioned whether Mexican vehicles would be inspected every time they crossed the border and whether drug testing was adequate on Mexican drivers.

"Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly set stringent safety conditions for the cross-border trucking program to meet before our borders are thrown open," said Mr. Hoffa. He said the recent report "made it clear that these conditions have not been met."

Actually, this is a true two-for-one bonus: eliminating American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, while creating potential danger for drivers all over the country. Oh, and shirking inspections on products like food that enter the country from abroad. So make that three. At least manufacturers and shippers save some dime, though.

And now, the ultimate effect of policies like these:

The average CEO of a large U.S. company made roughly $10.8 million last year, or 364 times that of U.S. full-time and part-time workers, who made an average of $29,544, according to a joint analysis released Wednesday by the liberal Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

And while this number is actually down from previous years, that's just a technicality:

The pay gap numbers don't include the value of the many perks CEOs receive, which averaged $438,342, according to the report. Nor do they include the pension benefits CEOs receive.

And those pension benefits ain't too shabby, as we've seen recently:

Under his employment agreement, Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli is guaranteed defined-benefit pension equal to 50 percent of his salary and bonus at age 62. Even if Nardelli’s performance does not entitle him to a bonus, his pension benefit will be calculated as if he had earned a $4.5 million bonus.

Lastly, should Nardelli be terminated without cause or in the event of a change in control, his employment agreement promises him immediate full vesting of his pension benefits. Other notable features of Nardelli’s golden parachute include $20 million in cash, immediate vesting of stock options and restricted stock, forgiveness of a $10 million loan, a tax gross-up and three years of benefits.

Oh, and just by the way, this might inch up that number a little bit:

But even including all that, CEO pay can look like chump change next to private equity and hedge fund managers' pay. Those managers made an average of $657.5 million in 2006 - more than 16,000 times what the average full-time worker makes, and roughly 61 times that of the average CEO.

I wanted to make one point about the first story. A lot of times, workers and labor advocates seem to be mislabeled as xenophobic, because of the outrage over outsourcing jobs overseas and the use of cheap foreign labor within the United States, both keeping wages depressed. But here's the thing. Those foreign workers, both here and abroad, are getting abused, as well. No one wins. It becomes a race to the bottom. And sure, while those low, low paying jobs are slowly lifting people in China and India, when costs get too high, manufacturers and other companies just move out and go to the next third world country to take advantage of the vulnerable in those places.

All we're asking for is fairness for American workers, and if jobs go overseas anyways, just pay for foreign workers. It's why the AFL-CIO is pro a path to citizenship, but against the temporary worker visas that create a permanent underclass of workers. It's why Andy Stern has been in China, working with unions there. It's why so many unions have so many immigrant members. So any accusations to the contrary, just don't fly.

I'm back and other goings on

After a few weeks of moving and being in transit, I'm back to blogging. The story still dominating the labor headlines is the Crandall mine collapse, with owner Bob Murray seeming more and more bizarre every day. Thankfully, though the Mine Health and Safety Department is still run by a corporate goon thanks to a Bush administration recess appointment, Dems in Congress are stepping up on investigating this mess:

Chairman Miller Requests Information from Labor Department & Murray Energy on Crandall Canyon Mine

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today sent requests for documents, communications, and other information from the U.S. Department of Labor and Murray Energy Corporation related to the operation and stewardship of the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah.

“Gathering this information is the first step in an investigative effort to learn what went wrong at the Crandall Canyon Mine and what we must do to prevent such tragedies in the future,” said Miller, whose committee has jurisdiction over worker safety issues. “The families of the miners, the public, and miners who still work underground every day deserve a full accounting of the events that led up to and followed the collapse at Crandall Canyon Mine.”

Miller announced last week that the Education and Labor Committee will convene a hearing into the mine collapse during the first week in October.

As awful a tragedy this specific mine collapse was, I've got a feeling the investigation won't be, in the end, so much focused on Crandall itself, as it will be a test case for exposing the blatant disregard for worker safety and the buddy buddy relationship between mine owners and their former colleagues that now run the "oversight and regulation" department, making clear to the nation how neutered and corrupted the very institutions that are meant to protect American citizens have become.

The other big story would have to be the continuing recall of Chinese made products, which plays into the larger, building tussle with China. Between lead and other poison-filled products, massive worker rights abuses and manipulation of the Yuan, along with Chinese ownership of so much of our national debt, shit is looking to be headed on a collision course with the proverbial fan.

In this case, though, it's not a clear cut "blame China" situation. In a way, Mattell is getting what it paid (very little) for. So, it's shame on China for having virtually no oversight and clearly willingly skirting rules to do things more cheaply; and shame on Mattell for entering into a situation where the risks were clear.

In an attempt to calm nerves and save some lives, the Senate is calling for action on inspection of toys:

Unwilling to wait for the Chinese to deal with their manufacturing issues, Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) have urged the CPSC to launch an inspection program against dangerous toys in time for the holiday shopping season. At a news conference yesterday, Senator Durbin said such a program would help restore the confidence of American parents that toys are safe. “A family going inside a toy store shouldn’t have to play Chinese roulette to try to guess what toys are safe for their kids,” Durbin insisted.

The recent parade of toy recalls has brought calls for more inspections from several members of congress. Many have expressed concern that the CPSC does not have the resources to police the toy industry. In the last two decades, the CPSC staff has dwindled from 900 to 400, and its budget stands at only $62 million annually. Durbin, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, said that congress could take legislative action to strengthen the CPSC. He said congress would soon discuss increasing the Commission’s budget and mandating comprehensive toy inspections.

Here's my question: why not address the root of the problem, the unfair trade deals that allow corporations to profit big time on cheap labor and business expenses, made possible by the poverty and lack of oversight in China? We will be spending money hand over fist to try and catch their errors, which generally will cost them much less than the reward of overseas production, while they sit back and continue to fuel the root problem. Genius.

At least it's cheap

Another recall.

Toy-making giant Mattel Inc. issued recalls Tuesday for about 9 million
Chinese-made toys that contain magnets that can be swallowed by children or
could have lead paint.

The recalls includes 7.3 million play sets, including Polly Pocket dolls
and Batman action figures, and 253,000 die cast cars that contain lead paint.
The action was announced on the company's Web site and at a news conference here
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Nancy A. Nord, acting CPSC chairman, said no injuries had been reported
with any of the products involved in the new recall. Several injuries had been
reported in an earlier Polly Pocket recall last November.

It was the latest blow to the toy industry, which has had a string of
recalled products from China. With more than 80 percent of toys sold worldwide
made in China, toy sellers are nervous that shoppers will shy away from their
products.

The recall involving lead paint was Mattel's second in two weeks.
Earlier this month, consumers were warned about 1.5 million Chinese-made toys
that contain lead paint.

Free trade: do it for the kids.

Dick Stickler

Mine Health and Safety Administration head Richard Stickler is now at the collapsed Utah mine, talking grimly about the accident and oh, god bless the family, how tragic this event was. And as head of the MHSA, one would think he was pretty qualified to say this:

Stickler said the Crandall mine is in compliance with the federal Mine Health and Safety Act, and had the oxygen and other provisions throughout the mine as required in its emergency plan filed with the agency in June.

Of course, like I pointed out in my last post, there was no shortage of life-threatening violations. But we should trust him, right? After all, he was vetted and approved by the Senate, right?

Coal miners have seen 33 of their colleagues killed on the job this year, and they have watched the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) become a second home for coal industry executives—instead of a strong voice for miner safety.

Today, miners and their families won a major victory when they helped derail the Bush administration’s attempt to salt MSHA with yet another industry insider.

Senate Republican leaders, knowing they didn’t have the votes to win, pulled back a scheduled vote to confirm Richard Stickler, a coal industry executive, as head of MSHA where he would be in charge of mine safety.

During his confirmation hearings in January, Stickler said he believed current mine safety laws were adequate. At the time, 15 miners had been killed in explosions and fires, and since then another 18 have died on the job—the highest number of mine deaths in any full year since 2001.

The nomination drew fierce opposition from safety advocates, the Mine Workers, families of miners killed and others.

Sounds qualified to fill a job that literally overseas life and death matters. Heckuva job, Stickler.

Mine Collapse as embodiment of a bigger problem

I want to talk about my impressions from the AFL-CIO Presidential forum last night, but right now I'm going to talk about an event that is a clear and perfect example of the importance of electing a real pro-union President and Congress.

The Utah mine tragedy has captivated the nation, with near-constant mainstream media coverage. And they've been eating up the bizarre, gruff speeches of the President and CEO of Murray Energy, Bob Murray. While some of his mines are unionized, this one wasn't. And that definitely wasn't because his workers didn't want representation, it would seem:

He called Sen. Hillary Clinton "anti-American" in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto after the senator said America needs a president who will defend workers' rights.

And he bashed politicians who, after mine disasters in West Virginia last year, called for new safety measures.

"I resent these politicians playing politics with my employees' safety," he said in an article in the Columbus Dispatch. "I resent them because I take the safety of my miners to bed with me every night."

But safety at some of his mines was suspect. Only a few months' data is available for the Crandall Canyon mine under his ownership, but at several other mines owned by Murray, the accident rate was well above the national average, in some years several times the rate for comparable mines.

And in 2003, KenAmerican Resources, a company owned by Murray, was convicted of violating mine safety laws at a Kentucky mine and the company was fined $306,000.

It's simple. Unionized mine workers fight for top worker safety conditions in one of the most dangerous professions in America. Workers who don't have the right to organize and bargain -- well, they're left at the whim of their employer. And the employer's bottom line doesn't often jibe with ensuring worker safety. No coincidence, the Sago mine in WV, site of last year's mine disaster, was also not unionized.

But it goes deeper than that. Even non-unionized mines have to pass safety inspections, or face fines. Kind of.

The bituminous coal mine ran up a record of more than 300 safety violations, of which 118 were considered to be serious enough to cause injury or death, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration.

But apparently, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration didn't think that was too big a deal.

The mine has been inspected six times this year. The latest inspection, which took place July 5, is still open. During that episode, inspectors cited the mine for 11 violations for various safety infractions. A subsequent administration report showed 12 citations were later issued, of which six were considered serious enough to cause injury or death.

One violation was for failing to adequately provide at least two escape routes inside the sprawling mine. No details were provided, but government inspectors did not think the violation was serious enough to recommend a fine.

Three of the serious violations were for failing to dispose or store flammable materials. Again, no fine was recommended.

Honestly, who needs escape routes? I mean, when would those ever be useful? Seriously, they'd be totally useless, especially in a mine that operates like this:

The mining technique used in Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, where six miners are trapped, involved collapsing the roof of the mine -- a method that dislodges such tremendous volume of earth with such force that it causes quake activity.

"It's the most dangerous type of mining that there is," said Tony Oppegard, a mining lawyer and former federal mine safety official.

In June, U.S. regulators approved a roof control plan for the "room and pillar" technique, also known as retreat mining, at Crandall Canyon.

It's a delicate endeavor: Columns of coal are left in place to hold up the roof of the mine while the vein is tapped. Once the reserves have been extracted, the miners harvest the last of the coal on the way out, cutting carefully into the pillars and scrambling out of the way as the roof caves in.

The final column to be slashed is known among miners as the "suicide pillar."

But once again, there was the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration, given the lethal combo a thumbs up. What could possibly motivate them?

Murray backs his political beliefs with his pocketbook. He contributed more than $213,000 to Republican candidates over the last decade. Three political action committees tied to Murray's businesses have given $724,500 to Republican candidates and causes, including $4,000 to Rep. Chris Cannon.

He made use of his political ties to Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is married to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and oversees MSHA, to get back at a safety regulator who had crossed him, according to the Lexington Herald-Journal. In the meeting, Murray shouted that "Mitch McConnell calls me one of the five finest men in America, and last I checked, he was sleeping with your boss."

Murray denied he referred to McConnell and Chao sleeping together. Tim Thompson, the MSHA manager who was the target of Murray's wrath, was reassigned and later retired.

The level of incestuous collusion between big business (and this is the 12th biggest coal company in the US) and government, especially the Department of Labor, is beyond disgusting. The Department of Labor, created to protect worker, has become the number one pawn of a pure ideological hatred towards workers. It's not the laws of the Congress, or the agenda set forth by the President that do the most damage; that would be too obvious. So this under the radar bureaucracy, headed by a Presidential Cabinet appointee, does the dirty work.

And this is why last night's debate was so unbelievably important. The President appoints the Secretary of Labor. Appoints the NLRB, another under the radar bureaucracy that literally holds the fate of tens of millions of workers who want to organize, who want fair treatment, who want what was agreed to in their contracts.

When you have people like the pure evil ones you have in office now, who turn a blind eye to union busting and safety infractions, this is the end result. Much like how we are paying the horrible cost for ignoring our crumbling infrastructure for years and years, we are suffering from years of a wink wink blind eye, or oftentimes blatantly anti-work aggressive, political infrastructure that doesn't give two gold cuff links about the hard workers they are supposed to protect and guarantee fairness.

So, we can have political leaders issue condolences and platitudes about feeling for the families of the trapped workers and bridge collapse victims, about how we must get to them ASAP, but it's all absolutely meaningless when the next day those leaders go to Washington and approve of a crooked Labor Secretary, vote down funding for the DOL, vote against funding infrastructure, and vote against the Employee Free Choice Act and other worker protections. Otherwise, it's just politicians being politicians, and working Americans (and, as we saw from the bridge collapse) and oftentimes every single American, suffers.

Debate Lightning Round

Job description of VP:

Richardson: Not be Dick Cheney, member of executive branch, ready to step into presidency, everyone on stage would be good for that

Lobbyists quote by Clinton:

Clinton: Fundamental reform, clean up what they leave behind, end no bid contracts, get rid of contracting out of gov't jobs. Fought a lot issues against lobbyists, healthcare (not true), fought banks on reform (not true).

Allow bundling by lobbyists:

Obama: Do not have federal registered lobbyists bundling, doesnt take PAC money, people in stadium need to know who they are gonna fight for, his reason for public life is because of "you"

Trial Lawyers now contributing to your campaign:

DC lobbyists job is to rig the system, every single day. Lawyers go into court rooms, butu when lawyers give money to jury, thats a bribe. When lobbyists do it to politicians, thats politics. outspent 18-1 by corporate lobbyists. Prez to stand up for working men and women.

Counter terror, would you appoint a republican to run pentagon or DHS?

Biden: Consider it, next president needs to bring country together. Cant do anything with 51% solution, we need consensus, if you dont have my experience and success with it, why do you think you can do it?

No terrorists attack since 9/11, does that mean DHS was a good idea?

Dodd: We're not safer, the dep't is too big, tragedy employees can't organize. Terrorism is a big issue, a tactic, and it will require huge amount of cooperation. First responders at home haven't been funded, we're vulnerable.

What have Dems accomplished, changed?

Kucinich: Tried to lead Dems, 72 members signing onto HR 676, lobbyign to get out of Iraq, infrastructure. Dems havent kept promise to get out of Iraq, working to make them to do it.

Would you honor Barry Bonds at the White House?

Obama: Still gotta hit one more. Had the opportunity to meet Hank Aaron t his weekend, reminded me of what sports shoudl be, what people should look up to. Bonds has been amazing athlete, honor his achievement, but sports should be something kids can look up to, not be cynical.

Improve recovery in NO from Katrina

Clinton: Put someone in charge who actually cares, has a 10 point plan, make sure the White House gets a report every day, question every day would be what have you done? Rebuilding NO is an American problem.

Pledge to stop no bid contracts?

Biden: Yes.

455 days before general election. will it disturb you race to replace would begin days into first term?

Richardson: Yes, but would want to bring country together, has the most experience to do it, needs to be bipartisan, is electable.

Obama: Campaigns last too long, cost too much money, too influenced by DC insiders. Have to make sure we are mobilizing Americans across faith, place, race, change from bottom up.

Biden: If I did the job, it would not start then. The reason it started now is because we are so angry and know how badly this country wants change. Americans must know there is no margin of error

Clinton: Will be so busy I won't worry. Move on national healthcare, energy independence, education policy that works. Won't care if people want to go out and run, asking people to pitch in and work.

Dodd: Started early because people like those here were so angry/frustrated, parliamentary system would have Bush be out. If we begin fixing things, America will rally behind that

Edwards: It's definitely too long, publicly finance political campaigns. Need change, referred to James Lowe, 50 years with cleft pallet because he couldn't afford healthcare, too much at stake.

Kucinich: Seabiscuit of campaign, people will say no way I will run against this guy. After I accomplish all I want, workers will say no competition for 2012.

Debate Part 3: Union member Questions

1. Deborah Hamner: Widow of miner killed in WV last year. She says Bush administration has failed workers like her husband by rolling back work place protections. As President, what would you do?

Biden: Understands what it's like to lose a spouse. Implement UMW recommendations. Goes back to Pakistan question, says the law says we'd go in.

2. Shirley Brown, Chicago Hospital Housekeeper: Stymied in trying to form a union, what would you do to restore those rights?

Kucinich: Member of a union, right to organize is a basic right in a Democratic society, right to organize, strike, safe workplace, political process, good retirement, would be hallmark of Kucinich presidency.

3. Jim McGovern, Iraq veteran came home to see factory job at Maytag moved to Mexico, how would you keep jobs from going overseas

Richardson: Keep pension, benefits, job protection. VA would be fully funded for mental benefits, etc. Guarantee funding for VA hospitals as well as hero's health card where all veterans could get healthcare anywhere they want.

4. Patriot in Ohio via Internet: 21 year old daughter joined reserves at 19, now in 10th month of Iraq, why is she there for 10 months and why does she have to buy her own armor?

Dodd: Has offered bills to fund body armor on Senate floor, rebuffed by Republicans, baloney about how Republican support troops

5. Steve Skvara, retired steel worker due to injury: OTB filed bankruptcy, lost 1/3 of pension and healthcare, can't afford to pay for healthcare, whats wrong with America and how will you change it?

Bless you, perfect example of what is wrong with pension protection and healthcare. Ought to treat pension and retirement of CEOs of companies exactly as every other worker in the company. Universal healthcare, we need it in the worst kidn of way so you don't bargain about healthcare cost. Walk onto white house lawn and explain to America the importance of Union. it is fine to come up on stage to give talk, but who has been there? 200 picket lines and organizing drives. Tells Keith he's finishing, says he's been there during crunch time with labor.

6. Reassure Pension without descending into poverty:

Clinton: Pension system is broken, have to stop companies going into bankruptcy to get rid of them, defined benefit plans again, back to mines, proposed laws but president doesn't want to help them, will rebuild manufacturing sector, EFCA

7. Jorge Mulasano: Hotel Worker who just became citizen from Argentina, concerned about undocumented workers who have roots here, will there be a path to citizenship?

Obama: Congratulations, proud that he is a part of the American family, wants the first vote cast. We can be a nation of laws and nation of immigrants. Worked hard in Senate and as President for comprehensive immigration reform, hold employers accountable who take advantage of undocumented workers. Pathway to citizenship that people have to earn it, pay fine, learn English, go to back of the line, will bring together country. Talks about being a community organizer in Chicago

8. Barbara Janusiak nurse, deal with broken healthcare system

Biden: Has spent much time in the hospital, angels in heaven are nurses, we need 100,000 new nurses we fun, insure every child, catastrophic insurance exists, while we move towards universal healthcare. Goes after Edwards and Obama for not being long time supporters like he has been because he has been around for so long, walked lines when it was a risk being from Del.

9. Universal healthcare

Kucinich: HR 676, Universal Single Payer not for profit healthcare, cover everyone, 46 million healthcare, no more premiums, no co-pay, no deductibles, take healthcare off the bargaining table and into the kitchen (??)

10. Edwards replies to Biden

Every pres of union and membership knows where hes been. 200 times on picket lines. picket line on saturday, snday, believe in America where anyone who works hard is able to earn a decent wage, where somebody who works hard doesnt have to worry whether their child has healthcare, anyone who has been with a company 20 years shouldnt lose pension, if you picket, no scabs. (When Olbermann asks about right to work state) He is, but he's still been a leader in it. The reason it's so important to have a prez who understands the importance of organized labor, not jsut for politics or support, understands the real reason why unions are important

11. Robert Flynn, union insulator, companies arent energy efficient even though it would save money, how do you work to force them to be efficient to make us less dependent.

Dodd: Everyone in Congress has great healthcare, everyone else should too. Implement 50 MPH by 2017 CAFE standards, tax those who pollute, use that money to invest in wind, solar, ethanol and other fuels. No other gift better than independent energy policy.

12. NCLB changes

Clinton: Answers previous question, talks about green collar jobs bill she sponsored. With NCLB, it has been a terrible imposition on teachers, school districts, teachers, students, part because it was not funded, also because it was not interpreted in the right way. Total change, students aren't walking tests (did a good job ignoring heckler, I must say)

Debate Part Two

Q: What happens after Iraq if Al Qaeda does take over

Richardson: Focus on terror, greenhouse gases, dirty bombs

Obama: Shouldn't have been there, phased redeployment, troops in the region, no long term bases

Biden: Goes at Obama for Pakistan comment, saying if Al Qaeda takes over, we won't go to Pakistan, we'll be back in Iraq. Federalization is the only way.

Clinton: 3 point plan, responsibly and carefully. Taking them out can be just dangerous as putting them in. Pressure on Iraqi parliament. Int'l coalition. Stay focused on keeping them on the run.

Dodd: Thanks troops, say policy has failed, not them. Redeploy starting immediately. Robust approach on diplomacy, unlike Bush. Don't sell arms to Iraq.

Edwards: Draw 40-50k troops out today, engage Iraqi gov't and sectarian leadership for political reconciliation, Iranians Syrians and others to provide stability. Bush never prepared for bad possibilities, civil war or genocide, plan or prepare for that.

Kucinich: Get out now, use $97 billion to tell Bush to get out with. Should never have gone in there.

Obama (why did it take so long on war supplemental vote?): Difficult to send message to president, everyone wants troops funded, hoped for Republican congressional conversion, shot at those who voted for it, so he finally voted no on supplemental. Need to change Republican minds, if not, when he's President, will tell JCS to end Iraq and focus on terrorism.

Clinton (same question): This is George Bush's war, but these are our sons and daughters, had to think long and hard beacuse she didnt want to undercut support, finally concluded voting against it would send a message.

Dodd (about negative quotes about Obama foreign policy): Need to be careful about words, Musharraf may not be Jefferson but he's the only thing stopping a huge fundamentalist regime, we need him.

Obama (responds): Finds it amusing that those who voted for the war are now criticizing him for making sure we are on the right battlefield on the War on Terror. Speech said we have to refocus and get out of Iraq, make certain we help Pakistan getting at Al Qaeda, but with actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda and Musharraf doesnt act, we should.

Clinton (responds): Dont think people running for Pres should talk about hypotheticals, and while actionable intelligence may lead to that, we don't need to telegraph it and destabilize Pakistan. We don't want Al Qaeda like followers getting Pakistan nukes.

Dodd: Admits he made a mistake, Obama should do the same because saying this was a mistake.

Obama: American people have the right to know what we're thinking of for foreign policy.

AFL-CIO debate liveblog Part One

Question One: Infrastructure in the wake of Utah and Minneapolis tragedy:

Dodd: Invest, creating jobs

Clinton: Invest, create jobs, create virtual infrastructure for security

Obama: Unrelated anti-war speech

Biden: Long history of infrastructure emphasis, putting America back to work at prevailing wage, no more commissions (veiled shot at Hillary who just introduced bill to create commission to review infrastructure problems), Republicans have been irresponsible.

Edwards (asked how to convince Americans inconvenience would be worth it): Given recent events, Americans understand how serious it is, want something done about infrastructure, goes into standard change, no insider for insider speech. Give power back to workers. No to insider lobbyist money.

Kucinich (should govt's subsidize private biz, such as sports teams stadiums, instead of infrastructure): We should just buy the teams, better return on investment (a joke). Bipartisan bill to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs. A little bit late after tragedies. New trade policies, get out of NAFTA and WTO.

Obama is asked about his stadium vote while in Illinois legislature: Absolutely right idea, created jobs and economic development.

Richardson (should we privatize roads etc): Shot at Edwards about union financial support. Fund infrastructure by eliminating earmarks and corporate welfare. Need to invest in power grid, bridges, highways, commuter rail, did it in NM.

Two: NAFTA and Trade

Clinton: NAFTA and the way it has been implemented hurt American workers, study in NY looking at impact on people who couldn't get products into Canada. She believes in smart trade (wasn't that Edwards' theme yesterday) with pro-worker provisions, enforce agreements with trade prosecutor. Real TAA and other support, source of new jobs, invest in energy.

Scrap NAFTA or fix it

Richardson: Never have another trade agreement unless it enforces labor, environment standards, get rid of labor dept union busting attorneys.

Obama: Amend it to put in protections, insiders are involved in making them, make them good for everybody, globalization is creating winners and losers, same every time.

Biden: President should create jobs, not export them, need to take leaders of Canada, Mexico to the mat. Made fun of allowing long winded speakers to go.

Dodd: Need to stop exporting jobs still here, long history of standing for American worker.

Edwards: Needs to be fixed. NAFTA is perfect example of bigger problem, negotiated by insiders, its cost us a million jobs, need protections, prosecution. You'll never see a picture of me on Fortune Magazine saying you're business's favorite candidate (BIG SHOT at Hillary).

Clinton in response: Saying other campaigns have been using her name a lot, she wants to change America, not fight with Democrats, wants Dems to win, she has fought against right wing machine for 15 years

Kucinich: Withdraw, no one else would, pumps up crowd.

Q3 How do you convince to buy American

Obama: People won't want to pay less if it costs them a job. We should expand trade, it's a question of who the president is negotiating. Don't reward companies for taking jobs overseas

Q4 China: Ally or Adversary

Richardson: Stop abuses of human rights and trade. Put pressure on Sudan, stop playing with currency. We have to have a realistic relationship

Obama: Competitor, but don't have to be an enemy. We'll both negotiate for our own advantages. Don't run up deficits and have them finance them.

Biden: Neither, but they hold the mortgage on our house, bad investments like war and tax cuts put us in a billion dollars in debt to them

Clinton: Balanced budget 6.5 years ago, huge deficit, fiscal responsibility to take back debt, tough standards on imports

Dodd: Getting close to adversary, they're working on their military. Bill to fight currency manipulation, access to their marketplaces.

Edwards: Competitor, huge human rights abuses, trade safety; 2 million toys in the US from china that have to be recalled, no food origin labels, President who enforces that, trade commission looking out for children

Kucinich: Criticized MFN status. Dig a hole deep enough and you get to China; we're there. Whole new direction.

Debate Tonight

Two hours until the AFL-CIO sponsored, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC hosted, debate kicks off in front of 15,000 working families at Soldier Field, in Chicago. Should be exciting, and I will be giving my comments during and after. But that's only part of the flurry of labor-political activity going on.

First, while the AFl-CIO as an overall federation may not reach the 2/3 majority needed to endorse a candidate, it's expected to release individual unions to do just that after its executive meetings tomorrow, which are part of the two-day national conference.

Johnathan Tasini at Working Life has a guess where those endorsements (and these are national unions; local unions can still endorse their own candidates) will go, pending tonight's performances, as does Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic. Here's the ones they agree on:

United Auto Workers: Edwards
UNITE HERE: Edwards
United Steel Workers: Edwards
Carpenters: Edwards
Teamsters: Edwards (though local ties for Clinton and Obama may murky that up. Also, note that Richardson spoke forcefully at their party at Yearly Kos).

Tasini also says Transit Workers and Professional and Technical Engineers may go Edwards.

American Federation of Teachers: Leaning Clinton
AFSCME: Leaning Clinton

As for one of the two big kahunas, the SEIU, word is they're leaning heavily Edwards, though they got burned a bit by Dean last time. I suspect that the members will be more passionate for Edwards more than they did for Dean, who ran an anti-war platform, not pro-worker.

I hope we eventually can this is a real debate, where candidates can't rely on talking points and have to answer to pressure put on them by other candidates. Forums are too friendly, and do nothing to move the issue-based discussion forward.

I hope we see some sparks tonight.

First Woman President Elected

... no, not that Woman and not that Presidency, but historic nonetheless:

Becky Moeller of Corpus Christi recently moved to Austin to take on a role no woman in Texas has taken before for the AFL-CIO.

In 2003, Moeller became the first woman to hold statewide elected office in the Texas AFL-CIO. Today, she will formally be named president for the 220,000-member state labor federation.

"It's a great honor to be part of such a wonderful organization that has a history of advocating for working families," Moeller said. "We must continue to strengthen our communication and have ongoing training on issues facing our unions."

She's certainly got the resume:

During her term as secretary-treasurer of the Texas AFL-CIO, Moeller was in charge of overseeing the finances and other activities of the federation.

Before coming to the Texas AFL-CIO, Moeller was president of the Corpus Christi Communications Workers of America Local 6137 representing workers at SBC.

In that union, Moeller served in a variety of capacities, including job steward, chief steward, executive board member, vice president and secretary-treasurer, since going to work for the company and union in 1967.

Good luck to her; president of a union in Texas figures to be an uphill struggle. However, Sen. John Conryn is a potential pickup target in '08, and any serious efforts at unseating him will have to go through the union, as Texas isn't exactly the bastion of progressivism that it once was (Republicans hold the governorship, both Senate seats and both branches of the legislature).

Fruits of his labor

I'm generally hesitant to swoon over a picket-walking candidate, and I'm still inherently skeptical. But it's encouraging to see what could be perceived as a political stunt become a consistent practice. In continuing with his aggressive courting of labor, John Edwards joined multiple picket lines this weekend.

First, in Chicago after his Yearly Kos appearance:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards killed two birds with one stone Saturday, briefly walking the picket line with striking Congress Hotel workers while simultaneously shooting footage for potential campaign promotions.

The former North Carolina senator, who is campaigning as a champion of the working class, spent nearly 10 minutes walking the picket line with unionized employees from the Michigan Ave. hotel, who have been striking since 2003 over substandard wages and health benefits.

And, of course, in Iowa:

Democratic Party presidential candidate John Edwards came to Sioux City today to show solidarity with the mixers, yard employees and ready mix drivers in Teamsters Local Union 554 who have been on a work stoppage from Standard Ready Mix since October 2006.

Several hundred people gathered just outside Standard Ready Mix as Edwards began his five-stop campaign swing through Sioux City, Orange City, Sheldon, Spirit Lake and Spencer. His theme on the day was to ensure that not just the upper class in America thrives and that the middle class doesn't disappear.

Speaking to a crowd largely adorned in union T-shirts, Edwards said for the middle class "to survive, one of the critical things we have to do is strengthen and grow the organized labor movement in America. I've walked a bunch a picket lines all over the last several years, and I'm proud to be here with all of you."

Edwards said his appearance in support of the strikers was "not about politics, this is about doing what is right for the people you stand up for... Your cause is my cause."

But perhaps the greatest payoff Edwards could have gotten came from the manager of Standard Ready Mix:

But, the scene turned tumultuous when union workers say they scuffled with the company's president.

During John Edwards campaign stop, Standard Ready Mix owner, Mark Jensen walked out with camera in hand. He also brought out a "Hillary for President" sign.

John Edwards, "Cute, that's cute."

Oh, and this couldn't hurt:

Jim Sheard, secretary of Teamsters Local Union 554, said he's known Edwards for five years, and "while none of the unions are making endorsements yet," he added, "I gotta tell you that John Edwards is the candidate who is not afraid of the word 'union.'"

Edwards actually injected himself into a vicious worker-employer standoff, with mixers, yard employees and ready mix drivers that make up Teamsters Local Union 554 having been on strike since October of last year.

This isn't to say he's locked up the labor vote. But stories like this go a long way in winning over a populist Democratic electorate in Iowa.

Andy Stern at Yearly Kos

Andy Stern participated in an interview/Q&A of sorts Friday with Atlantic Editor Harold Meyerson at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago. Though I couldn't make it out thanks to stupid things like my day job, I didn't let that day job get in the way of me watching the livestream they offered of the event. There's no transcript, but one advantage of being a blogger is world class typing skills. So here's a basic outline of what was asked and how Andy answered.

First, Stern was asked about the semi-controversial trips he's taken abroad to organize workers in places like Asia and Europe, and what the ultimate goal of it was.

He correctly pointed out that regardless of whether a worker is in the US, China, India or Sweden, they are more and more likely to be working for a big international corporation, so really, they're dealing with the same employers. Organizing all directions of a corporation's reach creates a united front, where no one gets taken advantage of, and all workers benefit.

As for organizing workers in poorer who have jobs that may have been outsourced or not created in the United States, he acknowledges that while wages and benefits will never be the same, thanks to standard of living and cost differences, they can still stand up for more than they're getting, and labor conditions, which when abhorrent save companies oodles of cash, are a universal issue; just because you're making less money, it doesn't mean you need to work in a sweatshop or 18 hour days. They went back to the US-China worker relationship a little later on, in fact.

As for manufacturing here, Meyerson asked if that industry was dead. Stern said that for national security as well as practical reasons, there will always be some manufacturing jobs, and it is important to fight for their rights. But the biggest growing sector is service workers (and as head of the SEIU, that puts him in a unique position) and we need to help them unionize to repeat the growth of the great middle class that occurred when unions were at their strongest; unions are the best way to redistribute wealth, which is what we did during a manufacturing economy, and what needs to be done in a different economy.

As for the tough organizing environment, and how people like those at YKos could get involved, Stern said that progressives are often so factionalized that they end up fighting separate battles against the same target; labor is fighting big corporations for better pay and benefits, while environmentalists fight to make corporations responsible for the pollution they create. Using that as an example, Stern called for a greater coalition of progressive issue group leaders to help devise a plan of attack against the common targets. In fact, as he later said in his closing statements, that's why a lot of unions are fighting the net neutrality battle that so many bloggers are passionate about; it's all about building coalitions.

Back to China, Stern was surprisingly bullish on the labor scene there, though he raised a few good points. I don't think he was saying there were great working conditions or pay for a vast vast majority of people, and a state run union isn't close to optimal, but the only unionized Wal-Mart in the world is in China; same with McDonalds, Eastman Kodak and Xerox. In fact, at least part (okay, a lot) of the problem comes from our own Chamber of Commerce going to fight fair labor laws the Chinese government proposes. It steamed me to think about that, especially when free traders say we have no right to meddle in the labor laws of sovereign nations when fair traders propose strong labor standards.

A lot of Americans don't appreciate the great economic power China is on the cusp of becoming (if their government can manage to keep control of an increasingly splintered environment, I would personally add); by 2010, there will be more English speakers in China than in the US.

Talking about Employee Free Choice, he says it's so important because the deck is stacked in the purported secret ballot "democratic" elections for unions, and sending in a card saying you want a union is democratic in itself. Stern noted that now more than ever people say they would join up if they got the chance. And with EFCA, they'd be introducing an entirely new world to many regions of the country with lax labor laws and uninterested state governments.

He didn't totally vilify business, though, addressing his alliance with corporations like Wal-Mart in fighting for universal healthcare. He said in '93, when the Clintons tried to do something about it, businesses stood for the status quo; bringing them on board would add to it a sense of it being an economic and not just moral issue (it's amazing to me that corporations that do offer healthcare don't fight tooth and nail for single-payer; the taxes would be far less than what they have to put out now for private insurance).

There is definitely an ideology that it's an individual's responsibility to get health coverage, but as Michael Moore showed, the rest of the world makes it universal and they're doing just fine.
The SEIU won't endorse a Presidential candidate without a comprehensive healthcare plan, and said Edwards and Obama had met that criteria.

On 2008, all the candidates have been invited to join the "Day in Our Shoes" campaign, where they'd go to dinner with a union worker one night and spend the next day on the job with them. Edwards already participated as an elderly care worker; Obama plans to work as a home healthcare worker, Hillary Clinton as a nurse and Chris Dodd as a headstart teacher.

For 2008, they're putting away $20-30 million to bankroll members to go work in different states on campaigns, working the grassroots for selected union-approved candidates. And for the ones they do help get elected, those new Senators and Congress critters will be held accountable for their votes and action by the "They Work For Us" PAC, which Stern said he was given a lot of shit for by Dem establishment types. But let's be honest; do you really think they're gonna abandon all the help the movement provides?