January 2010 
Labor helps union, nonunion jobless

Today's unions are changing to be more relevant to working families. While workers need unions for all of the same reasons they have always needed them -- family-supporting jobs, living wages, access to health care and secure retirement plans -- they also need help overcoming unemployment.

The economic situation in Michigan and across our nation is crushing some struggling families. When individuals lose their jobs, not only is their usual source of income gone, but also their personal work relationships, daily structures and an important sense of self-purpose.

Unemployment can be, and often is, a shock to the whole system, leading to the same feelings and stresses experienced with other major losses. That's why the Michigan AFL-CIO has created critically needed job clubs across the state, which we call a Labor, Education, Action and Referral Network or LEARN. Labor liaisons from the United Way and representatives of Michigan State AFL-CIO Human Resources Development Inc. meet with unemployed workers, union and nonunion alike, every day somewhere in Michigan to offer support through a difficult transition.

The unemployed are finding information and referrals a necessary way of life. The job clubs provide directions and access to family counseling, credit advice and food banks. In meeting places across the state, including union halls, members are helping each other cope with the economic situation, making suggestions for job searches and sharing valuable information on good job prospects.

LEARN also connects workers, union and nonunion, with services provided by economic development and work force development partners. We link workers to high-quality training and give them the encouragement to start new careers through reschooling and other means.

According to the latest jobs report, the average weeks that individuals are unemployed rose to 29.1 weeks across America -- the highest since the government started tracking. That means it takes almost seven months to find a job in America.

In Michigan it is worse. More than 800,000 workers are counted as jobless with over 100,000 unemployed for more than 105 weeks as of December. These 100,000 workers who have been unemployed for more than two years have run out of unemployment benefits.

As Michigan's hard-working people continue to lose their jobs, their benefits and sometimes use up their pensions, they are turning to unions for assistance. And we are not letting them down.

Mark Gaffney is president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, a federation of Michigan labor groups. Please e-mail comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , fax them to (313) 496-5253 or mail them to Letters, The Detroit News, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226.

The Detroit News

January 2009

Editorial by

Mark T Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

Now that President Obama’s inaugural is achieved and the George Bush era has ended, we should welcome the new approach to managing America’s economy the Obama administration will bring.  That approach will (and should) see healthcare as right and any individual’s lack of health coverage as an economic problem.  That approach will help middle class families rebuild their economic situation.  But, to be successful, the next approach to our economy must include policies to encourage wages that grow and outpace inflation, a real pension with protection from stock market excesses and resulting crashes and also bargaining power for workers that can adjust the balance in labor market between employees and employers.

The first order of business must be to complete the drafting of the stimulus package, then put the plan into effect.  Some parts are already becoming clear.  An expensive, but important measure might give laid off individuals 65% of the cost if they can fund the additional $300 to $400 to continue to purchase COBRA health insurance coverage.  At least 26 more weeks of unemployment coverage is being considered and must be included.  Up to 45 different funding streams are being considered as flowing into states from DOT projects to Medicare enhancements.  This is important too, as stimulus money will work best if it is broadly sent into the economy, hiring both road workers and medical social workers.

Direct subsidies to states must be included in any stimulus package.  At least 43 states, including Michigan are addressing budget shortfalls for 2009 or 2010.  We should prevent state cuts in public services during a difficult recession.  We must prevent workers who provide increasingly needed services from being laid off. Companies are struggling so to cut or end state contracts would be counter productive.

All projects funded by a stimulus program should be prioritized by a ratio of the most people employed per dollar.  Contactors hired should be encouraged to bid for work based on number of people employed, even if it means less efficiency by using fewer machines and technology.  The stimulus needs to be seen first as a jobs program, like FDR did, with the secondary benefits of new and enhanced roads and transport systems.  Of course the speed of beginning building projects must be a factor for a successful stimulus package, too.  This spring, before July 2009, is critical.

Manufacturing has left America at too rapid of a pace.  It has become unhealthy for the economy.  A low level of manufacturing jobs will delay the recovery and “weight it down” because the economic multiplier for manufacturing wages is higher than any other type of employment.  Any and all opportunities to grow and return manufacturing to the USA should be considered and included.

For example, GE Financial received billions in Federal TARP funds.  GE will gain earnings through the energy efficient retro fit of (municipal) buildings – the next generation of light bulbs is sold by GE.  Yet those light bulbs are produced only in China.  GE should be mandated to build a plant in the USA immediately, as part of their TARP funding or stimulus profits.  Another important example is all cement, steel and all other building materials purchased by stimulus funds should come only from America.  We should use our tax money to spend in stimulating the American economy, and not other countries.  They will benefit again once America is back on her feet.

I am worried by the lack of response of the financial markets to $350 Billion in TARP funding and to almost two trillion dollars in Federal Reserve financial assistance.  We must insure the fiscal policy works better than the monetary policy has so far.  What if the stimulus is too small to help or misdirected so as not to fully work?  What would insure that this pump priming will work, that further actions won’t be necessary and that the economy does pick up and recover and then grow on its own?

After the building projects have ended and Medicaid funds expended, only sustainable manufacturing jobs at family wage standards that are created by the stimulus funds will ensure America’s continued economic recovery.

We must re-build and push financial stimulus into local economies but we must also ensure real added permanent jobs result.  A true effort to bring back manufacturing opportunities will give employment.  The passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the heels of the stimulus package will give workers bargaining power and raise wages.  With this legislation workers rather than companies will have the choice as to how to join a union.  That will raise wages for everyone, both union and non-union workers.  That in turn produces discretionary income that refuels consumer spending and that will sustain our recovery.

A broad and fast stimulus package that leads to added permanent manufacturing jobs at union supported good wages for all is what our country needs, going into the future.

Many Michigan organizations and individuals played a significant part in reaching this consensus draft, including the University of Michigan, Dow Chemical, The Chamber of Commerce, Western Michigan University, Hayworth Furniture, Michigan Manufacturers, AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers, small and large manufacturers, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Together the advisory committee agreed on this draft, stating that every business should at the very least, teach their people what ergonomic hazards look like, then to look for these hazards and attempt to reduce these hazards.  THAT’S ALL THE PROPOSED STANDARD ASKS FOR!  Plus, the Committee assured that there will be free and readily available Michigan OSHA Training tools and assessment resources available to employers and workers.

Yes, in Michigan injuries are going down. Some proactive employees and their companies can be partially credited for this improvement.  Obviously it is not enough when 40-50% of all Michigan Workers Compensation paid each year are credited to ergonomic concerns.

Opponents of advancing a MIOSHA standard for ergonomics called for blocking this in the State Senate, claiming that mandatory ergonomic standards would “raise the cost of doing business”.  In actuality, recent examples of self-imposed ergonomic standards, have proven the exact opposite.

Lack Enterprises in Grand Rapids, realized a net annual savings of $900,000 when they implemented a program similar to what the MIOSHA standard calls for.  Many other Michigan businesses have also found reduced injuries and costs, including Brass Craft Manufacturing in Brownstown, Detroit Diesel Corporation and Sara Lee, Inc. in Traverse City.  These companies all testified before the Ergonomics Commission.

These outstanding employers have realized sizable savings in dollars and productivity and huge reduction of days away from work, due to implementing a program with their employees to reduce ergonomic injuries.  To date, NO business is known to have created an ergonomic program and lost money!

Many proactive companies today do twice what the proposal asks.  These few preventions: to review work sites and train workers, CAN make a big difference.

We need to add this to our battle plan and have the courage not to keep doing the same old thing. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company testified at the Ergonomics commission that the national cost of ergonomic injuries (with days away from work), is by far the largest cost of any type of workplace injury.

It amounts to $12.7 billion annually across the county and continues to rise.

NOW IS INDEED THE TIME to save dollars and productivity.

Now is indeed the time to protect all of our states’ workers. Ergonomic injuries can harm almost any Michigan worker and can cost almost any Michigan employer. Ergonomic injuries include repetitive motion injury from office work, back injuries from lifting patients in health care settings, rotator cusp tears from warehouse or manufacturing locations and wrist, shoulders, necks and carpel tunnel due to inadequate work stations, along with sprains and strains from overexertion.

The time is right for such a standard to address such a prevalent risk of injury and added business cost.  By working together workers and employers  established the minimum requirements for all general industry employers.  These rules establish only the requirements of awareness training and the process for assessing and responding to ergonomic occupational risk factors.  We should listen to these workers and employers.

We should begin now.

MTG:pf:opeiu459aflcio

The Detroit News Editorial

March 2009

By Mark T. Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

Let the debate begin.  Last week Teamsters President Hoffa wrote about the Employee Free Choice Act in this space, and UAW President Gettlefinger has written here and spoke on the radio about it.  Now comes the Detroit News also, last week, calling for saving the secret ballot for union elections, in their editorial.

Here’s my take.  What is lost regarding a secret ballot under the Employee Free Choice Act is only the company’s ability to force an election.  What is given by the Act is the choice for workers to choose between a secret ballot elections (held by the government) or a majority sign up, on signature cards.  Get it?  Now the employer decides.  Under the Act the workers decide to have a secret ballot or a show of majority.  It’s that simple. It’s even a simpler standard and under the New Act for a worker’s secret ballot, it takes 30%, whereas majority sign up takes over 50% support.

I must address some of the other parts of last week’s News Editorial.  Companies should not be against putting unsettled bargaining issues to arbitration after six months.  From your car insurance company’s policy to temporary employment contracts, to plenty of contracts between businesses themselves, arbitration is an accepted and preferred method of settling differences.  If it’s good enough for business to customer or business to business relationships, eventual arbitration ought to be good enough for company and union relationships.  Currently only half of election based organized workers ever get a contract because of corporation’s bargaining delays.  The relationship between the union and the company is best worked out between the parties, and arbitration as an end point will be pressured to make that happen.  It also insures that the worker’s right to have a union and a contract (in Federal law since 1939), is enforced.

My answer to the suggestions in the editorial; shouldn’t this decision take awhile, and companies may not even know if they are being organized, is that it is not the company’s decision.  To unionize or not is the employee’s decision.  It is the worker’s choice, not the boss’s.  If the workers want to act fast on a card signing majority campaign, they should.  If they want to be deliberate and slow and ask the government for secret ballot election, the workers can, but under the Employee Free Choice Act, it will be the worker’s choice, not the company’s.  If the companies know about an organized drive ahead of time, (what last week’s editorial called “careful considerations”), here’s what results.  Companies illegally fire at least one worker during the company’s campaign in twenty-five percent of elections.  Seventy-two percent of companies force employees to attend one on one meeting, held with their own supervisors to discuss a union.  These can be very intimidating. Ninety-two percent of companies hold mandatory large group meetings to talk against the union.  Over half of companies call the immigration service or threaten to close the plant during election campaigns.  These corporate driven fear and intimidation tactics are why many workers will prefer a majority card signing process.  Don’t take my word for it.  Go to the National Labor Relations Board (of the US Government) annual report for fiscal year 2007.  On table four you will find that 29,559 times workers received back pay in fiscal year 2007 in cases where companies violated workers rights during the NLRB election process.

The current election process is broken.  The Employee Free Choice Act will fix it on behalf of America’s workers.

Finally, the editorial wondered if Michigan would be placed at a disadvantage vis a vis southern states.  I think most assuredly not.  As we have talked to Republicans about this bill, we point that the Employee Free Choice Act will enable unions to organize in America’s South.  The Detroit auto companies will be helped as foreign transplant companies are organized where ever they are and the same basic union contracts are negotiated for them.  The temptation to seek lower wages by taking advantage of workers in other states will also lessen, as workers wages all across the country are stabilized at more equal rates.

Workers in unions generally make thirty percent more.  They are fifty-two percent more likely to have health insurance.  Almost two thirds of our economy is consumer spending.  More money in more people’s pockets is what our country now needs.  A stronger, wealthier, more secure middle class is necessary to get us out of the current recession.  The Employee Free Choice Act will do its part.

The Detroit News Editorial

April 2009

By Mark T, Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

It is budget time again in the Michigan Legislature and once again our state is facing budget deficits – short falls in the difference between revenue brought in and necessary expenditures out.  The original estimate was that we would be at least $400 million short by October, now it seems that shortage could be over one billion dollars by year’s end.

We simply do not bring in enough revenue for a state our size.  When the slow economy of a multiyear recession are added the results are worse.  In Michigan we have lost over 400,000 good paying jobs since George Bush’s first term.  Tax revenues are lost as good salaries are replaced by lesser wages and businesses taxes are lost as businesses close.  Some critics say we are not cutting back enough.  But let’s consider a few examples.  Michigan has tried to adjust.  We now operate with far fewer public employees.  Since 1980 we have 37,000 fewer state and city and county employees.  Workers have been making adjustments in the public sector.  What Costs has been increasing then?  Food stamp payments for the poor.  Now days nearly half a million Michigan children live in poverty.  Should we end that program of feeding poor children?  I think not.  Health costs, for the aged, the retired, the unemployed and poor children, are increasing.  But the well being of a state’s citizens’ is one of the most important duties of the government. Which of these groups should we refuse to provide healthcare to?

Spending has also been increasing in the Corrections Department. According to the Michigan League for Human Services, a well respected Michigan think tank; we are only one of four states that spend more on corrections than on higher education.  But even if we reverse the corrections spending trend that has meant increased costs of 142% since 1985 (we incarcerate for more people than other states our size), that won’t fix our state’s structural deficit.

We must change the way we gather the necessary taxes to make our state run.  It is the only way of fixing our state’s constant deficits and it is the only way of insuring Michigan can meet its obligation to our citizens.

Currently, the 2008-09 general fund revenues are raised 53.4% from individual’s income taxes, 23.7% from the “Michigan Business Tax”, and 11% from services taxes.  With the service industry now making up almost 60% of our state’s economy, it is clear we don’t tax services enough.  Some are calling for getting rid of the Michigan Business tax.  But that sector only pays one quarter of the load now, half as much as individuals pay.  Who can pay more?  With a better mix of taxes we can all pay more fairly.  Michigan is only one of seven states with a flat income tax rate.  This 4.35% means that the rate the wealthy pay is one of the lowest in the nation (Ohio’s top rate is over 6% and Vermont’s is 9.5%).  But this 4% rate is one of the highest rates among states on the poor.

Sales taxes, excise taxes on liquor and tobacco and property taxes are like a flat income tax.  They are regressive and hit the poor and the middle class harder by taking a larger part of income than that of wealthier people.  Michigan is an average tax state in tax burdens except for our wealthy citizens, and service businesses.  They currently pay less then in many others states.

The best way to balance our state’s budget is to raise revenue. The best way to do that is to change our tax structure and the way we raise taxes to make it more fair.  A truly progressive income tax is supported by 57% of voters according to a Michigan State University Economics Department survey.  Service transactions between businesses and business to people need to pay their far share, where many pay nothing today.  And the Michigan business tax could be adjusted, perhaps removing the surcharge, but it must not be eliminated.  People, individuals, already pay twice the overall general fund burden than corporations’ do.  Ability to pay as one principle and all in on the shared sacrifices as another principle. That’s the way to fix our structural budget problems.

The Detroit News Editorial

May 2009

By Mark T. Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

We all know that the largest problem facing Michigan today is the lack of jobs and increasing unemployment.  Over half a million Michigan workers are collecting Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and another quarter of a million more workers are out of a job, but don’t receive an Unemployment Insurance check.  I believe that we may see about 500,000 workers unemployed in Michigan for the next full year.

This crisis level of Michigan unemployment continues.  Just last week we learned of three more worksites that were closing in Muskegon Heights, Niles and Spring Lake.  Over 1,000 more (combined) workers will be laid off. Loss of a job and income is a personal crisis for families. Home foreclosure can follow, children’s education is interrupted or ended, and the financial pressures put stress on family relationships.  All of Michigan must join together to help with our state’s and our citizens’ problems of unemployment.

That joint effort is not happening today.  Currently, business leaders in Lansing and their hired lobbyists are fighting legislation to give unemployment benefits to workers who have been forced into part time work.  Business is also fighting legislation that would give workers enrolled in training the ability to continue to collect UI benefits while attending school or other training.  But here’s the worst part: these added benefits would be paid for by the Federal Government and not our state’s UI funds for at least 4 years!  There is $138 million dollars available to Michigan and its workers right now, but only if the Republican controlled Senate passes HB 4785 and HB 4786.  The House has already passed this legislation.  Speaker Andy Dillon and Governor Granholm support this legislation because they know that giving workers the ability to become retrained is important to diversifying our economy, a key factor to Michigan’s recovery.

But the party of “NO”, the Michigan Senate Republicans and their friends in big business are saying no to President Obama’s offer of $138 million dollars for unemployed families in Michigan.  Businesses claim that their own cost may go up and harm their profits and bonuses are completely unfounded!  Yet they are out of the mainstream in America by saying no to these additional benefits.  Several states have already changed their law to embrace extended benefits for retraining, including Georgia, Iowa and Oregon.  Many additional states, including Arkansas, Minnesota, Nevada, and even Sarah Palin’s Alaska grant part time workers benefits when they are recalled for a partial week.

Ironically, employers already pay UI taxes on part time workers, but those workers cannot collect benefits when they are laid off.  To deny these workers partial benefits if they work a partial week is hard hearted.

These federal benefits will last for at least four years.  Our state needs this Federal UI funding help in these difficult times.  Organized labor understands the problem and agreed last month to back legislation that gave Michigan employers $30 million in tax rebates from the Federal Government.  They got that $30 million dollars for themselves.  Yet now businesses and Senate Republicans are refusing $138 Million from the federal government for our state’s unemployed workers.  More over, studies show that UI benefits go directly into the local economy to pay for food, medicine, clothes and other necessities – including house payments. To deny the benefits is unfair and short sighted.  We are all in these difficult times together.  We should help Michigan’s unemployed and diversify our economy at the same time by supporting HB 4785 and HB 4786.

The Detroit News

June 2009 Editorial by

Mark T. Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

Rebuild America, Support good paying jobs, and fight global warming

The economic melt down, the energy crisis, and the global warming that we face are inter-connected, and so are the solutions. By implementing the right policies we can create jobs, secure our energy independence and power capacity, and protect natural resources for our future. But, we need a long-term strategy. It must provide better energy choices by driving investments to build, deliver and install clean energy solutions.  We need energy policies that will support both a U.S. auto industry and other manufacturing that is vibrant, competitive, technologically advanced, and an integral part of the solution to global warming.

The AFL-CIO supports Cap and Trade legislation as part of these policies that will take a balanced approach towards an economy wide program and that prevents foreign competitors from getting advantages over America companies. The AFL-CIO also believes that we must ensure that the nation maintains a diverse energy portfolio.  This must include renewal energy, fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro electric.  We think that solutions must protect individual industries and geographical regions from being disproportionably or adversely affected.

Such a strategy is now under consideration in Washington.  The American Clean Energy & Security Act HR 2371 is being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill offers a balanced blend of solutions that will help to create millions of new clean-energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, encourage the development of cleaner, cheaper sources of energy, and dramatically cut the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

Known as ACES or the Waxman-Markey legislation, the bill covers four main areas. These include “ clean energy” that promotes renewable sources of energy and carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low carbon transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid; “ energy efficiency increases” including upgrading buildings, appliances, and industry, ”global warming” that places limits through a cap on the amount of pollution causing carbon that industry produces and “ transitioning” that protects USA consumers and industry as we change to a clean energy economy.  These historic changes come with risks and we must work to balance bettering the environment with job creation.

The Michigan congressional delegation has been working hard to protect and promote the auto industry throughout this legislative process, including garnering $50 billion in low-interest loans for auto manufacturers to retool their production facilities. Congressman John Dingell (D-Dearborn) deserves credit for leading the fight to secure three percent of the revenue from the auctioning of carbon emission permits, worth an estimated $10 to $20 billion over the next 20 years, for the auto industry to use to develop advanced technology vehicles.

Two joint labor environmental groups, the Blue Green Alliance and Apollo Alliance, support this legislation.  We have seen other examples of trade unions working to both protect jobs and better our environment.  Recently, union leaders stood with President Obama when he announced new fuel-economy and tailpipe emission standards at a White House event. This was truly an historic achievement, bringing together labor, industry, environmentalists and government in support of a comprehensive and consistent national policy. While the resulting standards are aggressive, calling for a 30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency by 2016, they are achievable within the time lines proposed. And they can help to spur a renaissance in the American auto industry, crating new jobs as manufacturers restructure to build the clean energy vehicles of the future.

Creating a clean energy economy will be good for Michigan, with the potential of thousands of new, well-paying jobs. According to the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Development’s “Green Jobs” report, from 2005 to 2008, more than 2,500 green jobs were added to Michigan's economy, an employment expansion rate of 7.7 percent. Green jobs also pay well; 13 of the top 15 sectors of green employment have weekly wages above the overall private sector weekly average.  The Steel Workers remind us that each wind turbine built contain 250 tons of steel and thousands of machined parts.

We have an opportunity to rebuild our economy with millions of clean energy jobs, to retool manufacturing, increase our energy independence, and preserve the planet for future generations. It is time for the leaders in Washington to take the bold, forward-looking action that we need such as passing HR 2371, and we should support them in their efforts.

The Detroit News

July 2009

Editorial by

Mark T. Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

Every day millions of Americans across the country struggle to pay rising health care premiums, or lose coverage when they switch jobs, or become laid off, or simply can’t afford basic health care.

Its clear health care costs are squeezing the middle class at record levels and dragging down our economy.  And too many working families in Michigan are feeling the burden, according to a recent health care survey by the AFL-CIO.  Right here in Michigan, 54 percent of all respondents reported not being able to get the health care they need at a price they can afford. Meanwhile, 81 percent of Michigan respondents reported that their overall health care costs increased in the past year.

It is clear that our healthcare system must be changed.  John, a resident of Royal Oak, Michigan, experienced first hand how our nation’s health care system is fundamentally broken.  A self-employed businessman, John could not afford to both pay child support and buy health insurance after his divorce.  During this period he was in a major motorcycle accident that broke his leg in eleven places and left him $40,000 in debt.  Unable to pay off his health care costs, John was forced to file for bankruptcy—a situation that took him several years to overcome.

John responded to the AFL-CIO healthcare survey, as did 1,034 other Michiganders who told of how shortcomings in our nation’s health care system are affecting their day to day lives.

Some of those who responded had unions and many didn’t.  They were insured and uninsured, young and old, healthy and sick.  They were people from all across the country, from a diversity of backgrounds.

Their various voices all said the same thing.  The system isn’t working.

In a sign of how broken our system is, the survey found that health insurance does little to shelter families from high costs or difficulty getting care.  The responses of those with insurance told the sobering story of the breadth of the problems with our health care system.  Fully 43 percent of people with insurance say they are not able to get all of the care they need at a price they can afford.

We heard about the burden that skyrocketing health care costs create on already struggling families.  Specifically, 66 percent of respondents from Michigan said they spent more than $1,000 in out of pocket health care expenses, in one year.

Over and over again we heard people demanding change.  Two-thirds who responded are dissatisfied with their health care coverage.  Almost everyone who responded said that health care reform is urgent.  Nearly all said that government should have stricter standards for private health insurance companies that continue to profit by denying coverage.  And people overwhelmingly said they wanted the option of choosing between a public and private health insurance plan.

The changes that must be made in America are outlined in a national plan introduced by the House, HR 3200.  All of our Congressional Representatives should support this bill.  The Senate has a similar plan passed by the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee.  Our two Senators should support that bill or its provisions.

We are also discussing healthcare in Michigan.  Last week the Speaker announced a plan to change the insurance of over 400,000 state, municipal and education employees and retirees.  It would put them all into one big government plan this is a huge and risky undertaking especially before we know what changes a national plan may bring.  Americans want choice in their healthcare plan and the ability to lower costs while keeping value.  The speaker’s plan puts both at risk.  Currently hundreds of cities and school boards work with their employees to lower healthcare cost.  We have for at least a decade.  Having only one state level plan takes away local control and locally based savings.

Healthcare reform is complicated.  We are closing in on a solution nationally.  We must finish that job this year, and approve Congressional legislation before the August break. In Michigan we should wait for the national plan, and then continue our locally based work for lower costs and higher value.  We should not begin with a Michigan plan that reduces choice at the same time the national plan may add choices.  We should not begin with a Michigan plan that establishes a huge bureaucracy that would end a school board’s chances to work with its employees to lower costs.

The Detroit News Editorial

by Mark T. Gaffney

August 2009

Right to Work is simply wrong for Michigan.  In these days when small businesses need customers who shop, who spend their discretionary income, reducing worker’s pay hurts local economies.  In these days when fewer and fewer people have good healthcare coverage, those employees with decent health insurance are keeping our hospitals open.  And in these days when so many people have had to put off their retirement plans because their 401(k) has turned into a half a one (k), the benefit of a secure retirement is obvious.

Unions, their members and their collective bargaining agreements in Michigan, have provided the tide that raises all boats.  Even non-union workers make more in Michigan than in so called right to work states.  It’s about $6,000 more a year even for a worker not in a union.  More children have insurance in Michigan than in so called right to work states, because more of their parents have insurance.

There are higher poverty rates in right to work states, higher infant mortality rates and more work place deaths and injuries (according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

It is indeed a quality of life issue to avoid being a right to work state.  More workers with more money in their pocket means more to spend in the small businesses.  It means more vacation days and it means hospitals and other healthcare providers staying in business. It means healthier and a bit wealthier families.

The conservative fringe will claim income is rising and jobs are created in right to work states.  This is an example of using statistics to misrepresent the truth.  Many right to work states have suffered manufacturing job loss just like Michigan. North Carolina and Texas are two examples. General Motors closed its plant in Oklahoma after they became a right to work state.  Wages are rising faster in some right to work states because the wages started lower, thereby producing a higher percentage.  Michigan wages, on average, have been declining, because we have lost so many good paying manufacturing jobs, do to bad foreign trade deals.  Two thirds of those jobs lost have been non-union, by the way.

A call for making Michigan a right to work state is only a political statement.  Union members participate more in voting and politics than the population at large, and tend to vote more Democratic than others.  Don’t be fooled by a political power grab which reduces the number of one side’s political opponents.  Reducing union’s abilities to talk to voters is a cheap way to try to win elections.  Michigan needs an economic renewal, not political tricks disguised as job growth.  Companies will relocate in Michigan for our skilled workforce, for our water, to be close to customers and suppliers.  When we figure out how to market our state as workers and employers working together, instead of showing off our political fights, we’ll be more successful rebuilding our state.

The Detroit News

September 2009

Editorial

by Mark T. Gaffney

Many people around our state have been engaged in attacking union workers lately.

Editorial pages, politicians and some in the general public have been saying that we are paid too much or have too many benefits.

First of all, these claims are not universally true.  Some union members, including those in the public sector, pay more than non-union people for healthcare.  Some public sector workers themselves have no healthcare based on their types of jobs or working hours.  And state workers, according to a recent study by Charles Ballard of MSU, have wages equally comparable to private sector workers, when education levels are factored in.

But more to the point for non-union workers, when union workers bargain better deals over the years, non-union employers are forced to pay their workers more in order to keep them.  It’s the non-union worker who suffers the most in states without strong unions because there is little wage or benefit competition.

Consider this, UPS, a union company; its workers have health care. Wal-Mart, a non-union company, has over 400,000 employees without health care coverage.  Collective bargaining, which is available to any worker who organizes, brings those non-union people our same benefits

But it’s not only through collective bargaining and its effects that unions and union workers help other people.

Recently, I met with two dozen labor union officials who work at many of our state’s United Ways.  These good folks make sure food banks are full, that individual families who need help paying for home heating bills receive it, and that workers’ children who are in trouble, receive access to counseling. We call this our Community Services Program.

The Union Community Services workers report a lot of time spent working with the unemployed, both union and non-union. These Labor/United Way Representatives provide credit counseling, help people to access free or reduced cost health care services, and provide immediate help for family relations crisis’s.

Our people provide these services to non-union workers and their families everyday.  Whoever the local United Way serves, our Union Community Service Representatives help.

These community worker’s reports are heartbreaking. I had difficulty understanding that these stories occurred in America.  In Greenville, Michigan, a free food donation truck arrives once a month.  Originally, perishable food was donated to unemployed Electrolux workers.  Now, half of those receiving this charity food are not from Electrolux or the union, they are residents of the city.  They are non-union workers who are suffering in bad economic times because the union work in town was sent to Mexico.

In Port Huron, Michigan, a benefactor has established a free dental clinic.  Here again, needy citizens line up for free services. Thousands have been served, families without healthcare coverage, accepting the charity of the rich, because they must.

These reports remind me of third world countries, and I don’t want to recognize this America.

In Monroe, Michigan, the Labor Community Service Representatives helped put on a United Way Easter Egg Hunt this spring with prizes.  Five of the eight children who won bicycles, all of whom were of elementary school age, had never owned a bike.  Children in America without bicycles are living with families without healthcare coverage.  Their parents are lining up for free donations of food.  This part of America is frightening, but I am hearing about it and seeing it more and more.

Tearing down union workers pay or benefits will not make this situation any better.  Union workers want everyone to have the healthcare they need (We back the Obama Plan).  Union families want everyone on their block to have a job and unions do want everyone to receive more pay (We always support minimum wage increases).

In a world where the executives of bankrupt companies ask the court for millions of dollars in bonuses, the regular worker can feel powerless.  Delphi union workers did have part of their pensions guaranteed, while some other Dehihi employees lost theirs.  It does seem unfair, but I tell you, those  union workers had the foresight to join together in a union so they would eventually have help in court.  That ability to organize is open to all.

Any family or worker struggling should know that they can receive help from unions.  This year, unions led by the Letter Carriers, collected a record 73 million pounds of food in their 2009 Letter Carriers' National Food Drive.  That food went to food banks all across America, including Michigan.  Non-union families will receive that food, many more times than union families.

Next chance you get, thank a union member for providing you with clean drinking water, thank them for repairing your streets, keeping you safe and for teaching your children.  But today we help in other ways too. These days that help takes the form of community services assistance to non-union unemployed Michigan families.  Michigan unions will continue to be there for all.

Mtg:pf:opeiu459aflcio

The Detroit News

October 2009

Editorial by

President Mark Gaffney

Each year, The American Rights at Work education fund identifies labor management partnerships to celebrate.  Their national list, called “Partnerships That Work” honored eight companies and their employees this year.

While many companies today profess that they must implement massive layoffs, slash benefits, employ temporary and cheap labor, and hire union-busters to prevent workers from forming unions in order to remain profitable in today’s marketplace, the practices of these businesses prove there is another way.

The employers cited by ARW are bucking the current “race-to the-bottom” trend and defining new standards for 21^st century labor relations.  By fairly compensating employees and sharing decision-making responsibility with them through unions, these employers prove that embracing a forward-thinking business model is a smart, ethical, and successful strategy.

A leading insurance company in North America is one example. With a fully unionized workforce, American Income Life sets a high bar for respecting workers’ rights.  By selling affordable supplemental life insurance for working families, the company also helps promote public policy that protects workers. In respecting its employees’ choice to organize with the Office and Professional Employees International union through majority sign-up over 40 years ago, the insurer and its workers have seen the rewards of an all-union staff.  Its workforce earns fair wages, health insurance, and a defined pension benefit.  High employee retention and satisfaction is the result.  The company supports the Employee Free Choice Act, viewing it as crucial to the future of American’s middle class and good for their business.

The second example, McGuire Scenic, started 14 years ago to provide theatrical scenery for local performances and national traveling shows.  Since then, the business has evolved and diversified, supplying scenery for theatres, conferences, trade shows and events.  McGuire’s commitment to its workers, who are represented by the International Alliance of Theatrical Set Employees, inspires deep loyalty.  McGuire contributes to each employee’s pension welfare fund, provides health insurance and pay higher wages than non-union design companies.  In return, the union has helped hone the specialized skills required for scenic design work, including offering

forklift and carpentry training that minimizes safety hazards and increases productivity.  This union advantage is one reason traveling Broadway shows use McGuire Scenic:  they know hiring union contractors’ results in superior performance and safety.

The New York City based grocery chain Morton Williams also takes great satisfaction in providing a secure livelihood for its employees, and has honored its employees’ wishes to be members of the United Food and Commercial Workers.  As its business expanded and new employees were hired, the grocer’s workforce has used the majority sign-up process to choose whether to join the union—including supervisors and management.  The workers’ union reciprocates by providing three main benefits to the company:  extensive health and safety training, a systematic approach to address issues of disagreement, and a loyal, veteran staff.  Because of the good benefits, many employees have worked at the company for over 20 years.

These three examples prove that labor-management relations can be positive, respectful and productive.  Can this be done in Michigan?  Of course, and it already is.  The UAW’s decision to create a VEBA for healthcare insurance took billions of dollars off of the auto company’s balance sheets. When the Teamsters fight to keep car haul contracts in place between their employer’s and the auto companies, labor unions are working with, and to the advantage of their own employers.  Other examples include the training and upgrading and re-training that the Building Trade unions provide for their members.  Through their joint programs, the employers are guaranteed an up-to-date, well educated and safety conscious work force.

All of these employers and unions understand the value of working together.  They know that joint decision making, wherever possible, leads to better outcomes.

Unions will always dig our heals in to protect our members and their incomes and benefits.  That’s why we exist.  But we also know that in the long run, working together with union members and their employers is best.

There are literally thousands of examples in Michigan where this is done.  The bargaining table negotiations make the headlines, but the joint agreements do not.  We must keep in mind that for every one very difficult situation like the city of Detroit, there are literally one thousand municipal employer union negotiations that are concluded by working together and without headlines.

Mtg:pf:opeiu459aflcio

The Detroit News Editorial

November 2009

By Mark T. Gaffney, President

Michigan AFL-CIO

While the national elections this month have some people talking about angry voters, the local results in Michigan were telling in another way.  In local election after local election, union members and the middle class block of voters made the same decisions.

In Detroit, eight out of nine successful City Council candidates were endorsed by the AFL-CIO.  While Mayor Dave Bing was endorsed primarily by the UAW, the fairly strong showing of Mr. Barrow proved voters had concerns with the Bing Administration.  In fact, polling showed (EPIC-MRA) two-thirds of the city voters agreed with the city unions still bargaining their contracts, and gave Mayor Bing negative ratings on “working with the unions”.

Many observers believe that the election messages of Michigan’s unions were in tune with local voters. These include good jobs with good pay, adequate levels of police and fire protection and enough revenue for the public sector to deliver necessary services. These goals were desired by both residents and unions. In Taylor the voters turned out against their incumbent mayor, Mr. Priebe, a career politician.  He himself attributed his loss to the Taylor resident’s support of their police and fire workers.  In Taylor, the police and firefighters union members asked voters to join with them and elect a less combative executive and the voters agreed.  Also, in at six other cities, voters agreed with their firefighters union and approved minimum staffing levels or fire department mileages.  In at least six other area cities voters and the city unions agreed on re-electing incumbent mayors, and did so.

Across Southeast Michigan, from Livonia to Oakland County, voters mostly favored school mileages.  Perhaps the right wing talk about teachers pay and benefits drops to the level of only rhetoric when voters are really given a chance to stand with teachers, and their local unions, in taking action to better fund schools.  The same is true of most municipal mileages.  On Election Day, both union members and a majority of voters supported funding their local government services.  That these services were perceived as provided by dedicated, experienced union members certainly did not hurt any successful outcomes.

In Kalamazoo, union members realized that the anti-discrimination ballot issue regarding gays and lesbians was a workplace protection and a worksite fairness issue.  Here again, the standards that union members work for were reflected in a majority of voters choices as those voter’s sided with worker’s rights, and passed the anti-discrimination measure.

There is another reason that municipal voters this election generally agreed with the positions of unions.  Union members are also municipal voters.  The manufacturing union worker wants decent pay and benefits for local teachers to insure the best for their own children. Hospital union workers want their own city to provide good municipal services and to hire enough workers to do so.  Union members want the same thing for their communities as most citizens do.  That’s why in this election we largely voted the same.

There are discussions in the Michigan legislation, among leaders and in our state's newspapers about how to reform state and local government to best meet the challenges of our changed economy. Union leaders are part of these deliberations. Unions and their members understand that because of tremendous job loss due primarily to free trade practices, a significantly smaller auto industry presence in Michigan, and a lasting deep recession, our state must change. We are willing to have those discussions and work on reforms to state and local government, taxes and yes, labor costs.

But a union's responsibility to it's members, is to sort out fact from fiction before negotiations begin. Is an employer "broke" and in need of concessions to survive? We will always ask, "what does broke mean", "what are the real numbers", "what else will be done to survive"? On behalf of our members, we question urban legends, try to dispel popular misconceptions and seek the factual issues and true numbers that responsible negotiations must be based on. A current example of this is the discussions around Michigan's bargaining law know as Act 312.

PA 312 provides for, as the law states; an "alternative, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of disputes" involving municipal employers and firefighters, police, emergency medical services and dispatch personnel. PA 312 has been in place for over 40 years. It resolves contract disputes fairly and equitably and has eliminated strikes by providers of emergency services in Michigan.

Inaccurate and, in some cases, completely false information is being pushed by some opponents of PA 312. As an example, some commentators have said that under PA 312 "...the arbitrator is not required to consider a community's ability to pay." This is a calculated misrepresentation of the law.

PA 312 clearly states that ability to pay must be evaluated and considered in each arbitration award. Section 9 of the act states that the "...arbitration panel shall base its findings, opinions and order upon the following factors, as applicable... (c) The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit of government to meet those costs. (emphasis added)"

The language regarding ability to pay has been in the law since its inception and stipulates that the arbitrator must consider the economic impact to the city of any award. Arbitrators routinely thoroughly examine the city's finances and use the information provided to help them decide on economic issues. I asked a well known ACT 312 Arbitrator about this. He cited the example of the 2007 City of Detroit ruling, which was largely in favor of the city. They did indeed prove their case that the city could not afford the union's proposals.

Anyone taking the time to review the record of PA 312 will find that the legislation is working as intended. Recent research on arbitration awards over a ten year period, 1998 – 2008, performed by the Michigan Firefighters Council, shows that more than 95% of labor contracts for fire and police are settled at the negotiating table, not in arbitration. PA 312 has overwhelmingly encouraged local governments and fire and police unions to reach mutually agreed upon contracts and not rely on a third party to determine their future.

If Act 312 was as generous to workers as many commentators believe, it would seem that more than 5% of cases would go to 312 Arbitration. Over 95% of unions prefer not to use it. In those few instances where the parties use arbitration, the results have reflected a practical and thorough process that balances the interests of both parties relative to the local government's ability to pay.

I myself have researched some cities mayor's complaints about added costs which they blamed on the Act. They were wrong. In some cases, politicians have granted (through negotiations) extra pay and benefits to curry favor for their own re-election. In other cases, police or fire management gave benefits many people would consider excessive to help add to their own personal pensions.

If city administrators believe that the arbitrators in the 5% of cases that utilize Act 312 do not consider their budget constraints seriously enough, those cities should work through their employer associations and not choose those individual arbitrators. I find that when arbitrators are fair and when the rules of Act 312 are strictly followed, the outcomes are nothing like the urban legends being circulated which claim that arbitration does not work.

Difficult economic times do not require changes to a law that has eliminated strikes by firefighters and police officers and continues to provide an efficient method to resolve labor contracts. Nor do a few complaints about the PA 312 process justify radical changes to a system that has worked well for the past 40 years.