The conference opened with five reports from local unions that have grappled with the prospect of job loss as a result of outsourcing and corporate spinoffs. Officials making presentations included Local 223 President Jim Harrison and Vice President Rich Mata; Local 246 Business Manager Monte Kotur; Local 335 President Clara Faatz; Local 369 President Gary Sullivan; and Canada Power Workers Union President Don MacKinnon.
Utility Workers Union of America locals and leaders from all over America helped make the Elizabeth Warren fundraiser on March 31 the most successful fundraiser in the history of the Utility Workers Union of America. UWUA leaders and locals from all over America contributed thousands of dollars to her campaign.
President Michael Langford said, "this was truly a national effort with our leaders and local from across America stepping up and sending a message that the UWUA will do more than ever to elect pro-worker candidates this year."
I’m an economist. I sometimes get asked “Why is the new book you are publishing about organizing? Why not another one on economic ideas?”
It’s a fair question. An obvious answer would be that Playing Bigger Than You Are is a good read written by a person I respect. That’s true, but it's not why we chose to publish it.
We’re publishing Stewart Acuff’s new book because organizing, not ideas, drives our economic and political system. I can sit in on college seminars forever, exchanging cool ideas on what “we” should be doing, and nothing will happen outside of the room.
Here’s one kind of very effective organizing: corporations merge and acquire each other in a process that leaves ever-fewer, ever-larger players casting shadows over the economy. Every economic textbook I know of will tell you this results in market power; that is, the ability to push up the prices you pay and to push down on the wages you earn.
Here’s another kind of organizing: the wealthiest people in the country buy the political system and use it to their advantage. Should you really wonder that the banks get taken care of while you go without a job and watch your home become foreclosed? Organized money is powerful by any measure.
So, where does that leave you? As an individual, you’re done. Economic power will make you poor, and political power will keep you that way. But Stewart Acuff’s new book gives example after example of how ordinary people, acting together, can gain the economic and political power necessary to turn things their way. From stop signs in Memphis to stopping Newt Gingrich in Georgia to major labor campaigns, we see the power of organized people.
I’ll close with this. I, and a handful of other economists, have been writing about income inequality for several years. Maybe the message got out to some, but not many. Then came Occupy Wall Street. Income inequality (the other 99%) is now much closer to being standard media and political fare.
Check out Stewart’s book at LevinsPublishing.com. Victory will come from you, not from academics like me.
(Richard A. Levins is Professor Emeritus of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota and president of Levins Publishing.)
AKRON, Ohio, and GREENSBURG, Pa., December 16, 2010 – FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) and Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE: AYE) today announced that they received approval for their merger from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (WVPSC).
“We are pleased to have successfully completed this important step in our merger process,” said Anthony J. Alexander, President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstEnergy. “We believe the commitments we’ve made to customers in Allegheny Energy’s West Virginia service area will bring significant value in terms of reasonable rates, enhanced customer service and continued support for community initiatives. We look forward to a long and successful relationship with the West Virginia communities now served by Allegheny Energy.”
“We appreciate the Commission’s approval of our proposed merger,” said Paul J. Evanson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Allegheny Energy. “We are confident this combination will result in a stronger company that will better serve our many stakeholders, including those in West Virginia.”
The companies filed their merger application with the WVPSC on May 18, 2010, and filed a settlement agreement with all parties to the application on November 3, 2010. In the application and settlement agreement, the companies committed to:
Locate a regional headquarters operation for Allegheny Power’s West Virginia utility operations within the service territory of Monongahela Power.
$7.5 million in rate reductions over a two-year period for Allegheny Power’s West Virginia customers.
No net job losses in the utility operating company positions in West Virginia for at least two years as a result of involuntary attrition related to the integration process.
Expand FirstEnergy’s Power Systems Institute program to West Virginia.
Customer service enhancements and reliability commitments aimed at reducing the duration of outages and improving customer service at the company’s call center.
Maintain the customer call center operations in Fairmont, West Virginia, for at least five years.
The merger application and settlement were supported by the Staff of the WVPSC, the West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division, West Virginia Energy Users Group, the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO and UWUA System Local 102-O, West Virginia Citizen Action Group, Local Union 2357 and Local Union 50 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Marion County Commission. The merger is expected to close in the first half of 2011, subject to customary closing conditions, including additional regulatory approvals, as outlined in the joint proxy statement/prospectus.
The companies have also received merger approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and have applications pending with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the Maryland Public Service Commission. Shareholders for both FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy overwhelmingly approved proposals related to the proposed merger.
In addition to historical information, this news release may contain a number of “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as anticipate, expect, project, intend, plan, believe, and words and terms of similar substance used in connection with any discussion of future plans, actions, or events identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements relating to the proposed merger include, but are not limited to: statements about the benefits of the proposed merger involving FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, including future financial and operating results; FirstEnergy’s and Allegheny Energy’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions; the expected timing of completion of the transaction; and other statements relating to the merger that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, expectations and projections and, as a result, are subject to risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that actual results will not materially differ from expectations. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forwardlooking statements. With respect to the proposed merger, these factors include, but are not limited to: the risk that FirstEnergy or Allegheny Energy may be unable to obtain governmental and regulatory approvals required for the merger, or required governmental and regulatory approvals may delay the merger or result in the imposition of conditions that could reduce the anticipated benefits from the merger or cause the parties to abandon the merger; the risk that a condition to closing of the merger may not be satisfied; the length of time necessary to consummate the proposed merger; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; the risk that the cost savings and any other synergies from the transaction may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; disruption from the transaction making it more difficult to maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers; the diversion of management time on merger-related issues; the effect of future regulatory or legislative actions on the companies; and the risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect. These risks, as well as other risks associated with the merger, are more fully discussed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus that is included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333- 165640) that was filed by FirstEnergy with the SEC in connection with the merger. Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in FirstEnergy’s and Allegheny Energy’s reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements included in this document speak only as of the date of this document. Neither FirstEnergy nor Allegheny Energy undertakes any obligation to update its forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document.
The Borough of Oakmont in PA thought it could bully and spend into extinction Local 211 with a membership of only 23. They weren't counting on the National Union.
Today the Utility Workers Union of America enthusiastically endorsed President Barack Obama for a second term.
The National Executive Board, meeting in Boston, unanimously made the endorsement.
Citing Obama's efforts to fix the economy and his success at saving the American auto industry and his commitment to the middle class, UWUA President Michael Langford said, "America needs the strong common sense and commitment to average Americans that President Obama and Vice President Biden have governed with."
As caucus craziness reaches its peak here in Iowa, the Occupy movement has not been left out. As the Des Moines Register reported Wednesday in a notably favorable top- of-the-front-page story:
About 250 protesters from at least 11 states turned out Tuesday night for the first event of Occupy Iowa's most aggressive attempt to influence the presidential campaign.
The protesters ramped up for demonstrations at the candidates' local headquarters and the offices of the Republican and Democratic parties. They were prepared to be arrested en masse, and they were fired up.
Des Moines happens to be my hometown, and so I've watched OccupyDSM for months. The impressive strength and resilience of local activists there is one of the things that first convinced me that this could be a movement with truly national reach.
From its start, OccupyDSM has had a hostile relationship with Republican Governor Terry Branstad-who was known to Iowans, not altogether happily, as "governor for life" when he lorded over the state from 1983 to 1999, and who added a fifth act to his undying reign when he won reelection as part of the Republicans' state-level surge in the 2010 midterms. Branstad swiftly evicted the OccupyDSM protesters from the State Capitol grounds when they set up camp in early October. That event produced some of the movement's first arrests outside of New York.
However, Mayor Frank Cownie offered OccupyDSM a new space for an occupation on city property, which has since hosted a tent city that has persevered into the Iowa winter. OccupyDSM has also maintained a good working relationship with the city police force.
One of the interesting and impressive things about the local movement is how, even as its new occupation continues to stand, it has moved beyond a sole focus on the encampment. With the "People's Caucus," activists are taking advantage of the intense national spotlight shined on the state once every four years, hosting a week of teach-ins and nonviolent direct actions focused on Occupy issues, most prominently the need to get corporate money out of politics. In addition to scoring a plethora of press hits in the local media, the actions have made the national nightly news coverage and have produced multiple stories in outlets such as the New York Times.
The Tuesday night opening event for the People's Caucus was designed to mirror the experience of attending one of the actual caucuses in Iowa. After some welcoming speakers, participants were given a chance to offer resolutions to the assembly. Unlike in the Democratic or Republican caucuses, these resolutions were not voted up or down for possible inclusion in a state party platform. But the process gave a wide range of speakers-including Occupy representatives from Iowa City, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle-a chance to speak out in favor of things like nullifying the Citizens United ruling, reversing the National Defense Appropriations Act's violations of civil liberties, "dismantling the U.S. military empire," ending Bush-era tax cuts, and instating public financing of campaigns.
Next, caucus participants would ordinarily form "preference groups" for specific candidates, trying to get together enough support to win a delegate to represent their pick at the state party convention. In the Peoples' Caucus, participants instead formed "dispreference groups," choosing candidates they'd most like to protest.
On Wednesday, I went with the anti-Mitt Romney group to occupy Romney's Des Moines campaign headquarters. Office staffers (who sheepishly removed the Romney banner from their front window while the action was taking place) locked out the crowd of approximately sixty protesters. Seven people were ultimately arrested at the office door, while others worked on building a cardboard pipeline to Wells Fargo, a bank (conveniently located a few doors down) that has pumped a steady stream of money into Romney's campaign. Police arrested three additional protesters who entered the Wells Fargo branch.
When activists first announced that they would "Occupy the Caucuses," Branstad helped stoke fears that dissidents would be interrupting the democratic process itself. However, People's Caucus delegates emphasized that they would instead be targeting campaign offices, demanding that the candidates be transparent in disclosing the big business contributions that are fueling their efforts. As my younger brother Paul, director of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Working Poor and active OccupyLA participant, stated as part of the People's Caucus's opening panel: "We are not here to disrupt the caucus. We are here to make the caucuses a true representation of democracy...The real disruption is how much money Wall Street has put into our political system."
A good friend of mine, Aaron Jorgensen-Briggs, gave the opening welcome for the People's Caucus on Tuesday night. The following was his statement (as seen on C- Span):
Friends, neighbors, members of the press, visiting Occupy delegates, honored guests, welcome. I'd like to begin with some words from a great American leader of the past. He wrote:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money- power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
These words of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1864, resonate loud and clear tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, in 2011.
We have gathered here tonight because the political system in the United States no longer represents the values of the American public. Just as President Lincoln predicted, the money-power of the country now resides in the hands of a tiny portion of the population, the 1 percent.
We are here tonight to overthrow money-power with people power. We are here tonight as citizens and patriots to preserve our democracy from the corrupting influence of Wall Street and big corporations. We are here tonight to raise our voices in defense of the American dream. We are here tonight to restore the American political system and American society, to make it human- centered, not profit-centered. We are here tonight to follow through on the vision of our founders and the vision of the great American social movements of the past, the movements that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, ended racial segregation in our communities, established safe working conditions and good wages for hard-working Americans and their families. We are here tonight because our political leaders are no longer able to lead us.
Now is the time for us to lead, for the people of the United States, the 99 percent, to rise up, and restore America, to recreate it, truly, as a nation of opportunity, equality, and justice. Honored guests, members of the 99 percent, we are here tonight because of you. "Join Us!" we cried, and you have answered. And for that, we thank you, and we bid you welcome to the first-in-the-nation People's Caucus!
As the Cancun climate talks proceed in balmy 75 degrees weather, the U.S. Senate stands on the precipice of a vote on a controversial new tax bill. Unfortunately, key omissions in both the evolving international climate deal and the tax legislation threaten to plunge the vision of a clean energy economy into a deep freeze.
In Cancun, NWF has been working as part of the BlueGreen Alliance for inclusion of provisions that seek to ensure that the transition to a greener economy require sustained commitment of national resources to create and retain good union jobs. Known as “Just Transition,” the provisions were removed from the opening section (known as the “Shared Vision”) of the draft climate treaty. These provisions were the only anchor in the deal that addresses how efforts to address global warming can support jobs and workers. There are significant and ongoing efforts to add this piece back into the agreement (supported by the United States and other countries) but as of now it still remains out. Simply put, it needs to be placed back into any final agreement.
On a parallel track, Congress is now readying itself to vote on a new tax package that extends the current income tax levels. Like the emerging Cancun agreement, the tax package fails to include several key provisions that have successfully encouraged recent investments in creating a clean energy economy. One provision known as the Section 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit provides tax credits to manufacturers that invest in retooling America’s factories to build clean energy technologies such as electric vehicle components. Leaving 48C on the cutting room floor is tantamount to abandoning manufacturing state Senators, manufacturing industries, and domestic clean energy manufacturing overall.
The second key piece that may be omitted from the emerging tax bill is known as the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program which authorizes the Department of Energy to issue grants, in lieu of existing renewable energy tax credits, to renewable energy facilities that are placed in service or that begin construction by the end of the year. The program is a key incentive that encourages new investment in renewable energy projects such as the offshore wind projects the National Wildlife Federation described its recent report “Offshore Wind in the Atlantic: Growing Momentum for Jobs, Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Wildlife Protection.”
A global vision that tackles the climate crisis but fails to try and ensure that a low carbon future is built on good, new jobs would be selling our future short. Given the current economic issues in our country, now is the time to be seeking global and national action to rebuild the country with a green vision and not place good jobs on the back burner.
Listen to Bob Baugh, Executive Director, Industrial Union Council, AFL-CIO, speak about a ”Just Transition.”
Listen to Stewart Acuff, Chief of Staff, Utility Workers Union of America, talk about working with environmental groups to create a clean energy economy.
The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA AFL-CIO) and its Massachusetts Local 369 raised $18,000 dollars for Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in a large fundraiser this past Saturday in Boston's Parker House Hotel.
Hundreds of utility workers and members of other unions attended the fundraiser and contributed thousands of additional dollars for Congressman Stephen Lynch, Keating, and new candidate Joe Kennedy.
President Michael Langford of the utility workers said, "Elizabeth Warren is exactly the kind of leader we need to send to Washington--a strong consumer advocate and defender of the middle class."
Jim Harrison, President of Local 223 UWUA testified on Dec. 15, 2011 at a public meeting on the draft environmental impact study for the proposed Fermi 3 Power Plant.
Here is Jim testimony – “My name is James Harrison, and I currently serve as President, Local 223 of the Utility Workers Union of America. I have the honor and privilege to represent the hard working men and women who safely and efficiently operate and maintain the Fermi 2 Power Station.
“I am here to provide comment and to inform you that the Utility Workers support moving forward with the licensing process.
“Pricing schemes and regulatory oversight for greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly becoming a reality as more countries look to ensure reduction targets, but so does the opportunity for volatility of natural gas prices.
“We believe that nuclear power fits into a portfolio of power generation that also includes conventional and renewable generation. Nuclear power must be a key energy component to reduce dependency on foreign fuel sources, as well as meeting state and federal emission reduction targets.
“The Utility Workers also comment that for nuclear energy to expand, the public must trust the nuclear industry. It must trust reactor owners to run their reactors safely. The public must trust regulators to ensure there is adequate oversight. And, it must trust reactor designers to create new reactors that do not share the vulnerabilities of older ones. A sober and careful assessment for all new construction must be done to recognize and correct any deficiencies in the industry’s approach to construction, environment and safety both long-term and short-term to ensure the highest standards are met.”
Democrats introduced legislation that would sharply limit the ability of foreign-connected companies to participate in U.S. politics and require greater transparency from corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that pay for political advertising.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Sen. Chuck Schumer introduced the Disclose Act to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s January ruling in the Citizens United case.
The House of Representatives passed a version of the bill in June but it has not been able to move forward in the Senate.
The Disclose Act would accomplish three important goals:
1. Increase transparency and disclosure of political spending:
The most important thing we can do in response to this ruling is ensure transparency and allow people to follow the money that is influencing elections and politicians in Washington. We will require heads of organizations to ‘stand by their ad’ in the same way candidates must. If outside groups spend their funds in campaigns, voters have a right to know who is delivering and paying for the message. Additionally, powerful special interests will not be able to hide behind sham organizations and dummy corporations.
Currently someone could set up “good government inc.” and spend millions on ads – no one would be the wiser of who was really funding the group. Under this bill, the top funder of the ad must also ‘stand by their ad’ and the top five contributors will be listed on the screen at the end of the ad.
2. Prevent foreign companies—including those owned by hostile foreign governments—from influencing America’s elections:
This bill bars U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures.
This will ensure that foreign corporations, who do not put our country first, are not able to impact our elections or buy our democracy.
3. Ensure that entities that receive taxpayer money can’t turn around and spend money in elections:
The legislation prevents federal contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures.
Wall Street banks, for example, should not be able to take taxpayer dollars and then turn around and spend millions to defeat lawmakers who are regulating them.
Kim Warren, the president of Local 640 reports that she and her committee in Pensacola, Florida (a right to work for less state) doubled their membership in a single afternoon by organizing an amazing show of union power at a union-organized picnic.
One of Massachusett's largest and most important union, Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA - AFL-CIO) will announce their support for Elizabeth Warren with a large fundraiser Saturday , March 31, 2012 at the Omni Parker Hotel in Boston.
The fundraiser will begin about 6 pm.
Hosts are the Utility Workers Union of America. Their President, D. Michael Langford said, " We are thrilled to do all we can to elect Elizabeth Warren. She's a proven consumer advocate and friend of workers."
Bob and Lori Whalen pictured below, delivered Christmas dinner to the Occupy Pittsburgh movement on Christmas day. UWUA System Local 102 provided the holiday feast.
Please support your local Occupy movement or adopt one near you. You don’t necessarily need to camp out to help support this movement. You can also attend the daily general assemblies, take part in discussion groups, donate supplies or money, or put your unique artistic, media or culinary skills to work.
What is a “right to work” law? Despite its misleading name, this type of law does not guarantee anyone a job and it does not protect against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have—the union contract.
A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.
“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process. Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!
Will a “right to work” law benefit workers in our state? No. Workers in states with so-called Right-to-Work (RTW) laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states—lower wages, higher poverty, less access to health care, poorer education for children-- according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Census Bureau. Why should our state adopt a losing RTW strategy that lowers the standard of living for workers and their families?
Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages
On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.
“Right to Work” States Spend Less on Education
Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.
“Right to Work” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.
“Right to Work” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards
Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.
78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.
Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.
How will a “right to work” law affect our economy? We need to strengthen our economy, and a so-called “Right to Work” Law would take us in the wrong direction. Our state has a better economic record than states with so-called “right to work” laws. For employers, a union contract with lower turnover and higher employee morale equals higher productivity. By undermining contracts and depressing wages, a “right to work” law will reduce expendable consumer income and hurt productivity.
Do we need a “right to work” law to attract new jobs to our state? No. Industries locate in a state for many reasons, but a right to work law is not one of them. Factors like workforce productivity, availability of skilled workers, transportation, closeness to markets and materials, quality of life and proximity to research universities are the keys to economic growth. We need to create good jobs throughout the state, but a “right to work law” will not persuade companies to move here.
Who benefits from “Right to Work” Laws? No one. Some low-wage employers might think that they would benefit from weak unions and low wages, but union members are also consumers. “Right to work” laws undermine the purchasing power of unionized workers. Employees covered by union contracts receive 28 percent more in wages and benefits than workers without unions. For women workers, the union advantage is 34 percent. For African American workers, the union advantage is 29 percent. And for Hispanic workers, the union advantage is a whopping 50 percent. When “right to work” laws weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits, workers have less to spend and the entire economy – particularly small business--suffers.
“Right to Work” and Individual Freedoms
Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union? No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union. Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.
Is a union required to represent all employees covered by a contract (nonmembers as well as members)? Yes. Under federal labor law, unions have the duty to fairly represent all workers covered by a contract. That means nonmembers as well as members get the same wages, hours and working conditions established by the contract. Unions must bargain for everyone and enforce the contract terms for everyone in a fair, honest, nondiscriminatory manner. Unions cannot refuse to pay the costs of arbitrating a grievance simply because it involves a nonmember. A union that violates this duty of fair representation can be sued. This duty of fair representation applies whether or not the state has a right to work law.
If our state enacts a “right to work” law, who will pay the costs of representing nonmembers? Union members will be forced to pay not only their own share of representation costs, but also the full costs of those who do not pay their fair share of dues but still receive all of the benefits of union representation.
Does a union security clause require nonmembers to pay full union dues? No. Nonmembers are required to pay only the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining expenses, so these costs are fairly shared by all represented employees.
Can a union unilaterally impose a union security agreement? No. The employer and the union must negotiate a union security agreement. If management refuses, there is no union security agreement.
Why would an employer agree to a union security clause? Many employers want to avoid the divisions and animosity that occur when some workers have to pay the costs of representing other employees.
Will a “right to work” law protect a worker’s right to a job? No. These laws guarantee no one a job, nor do they provide any due process or just cause protections against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have—a grievance procedure that requires employers to have legitimate, job-related reasons for disciplining or discharging an employee.
On Friday, June 29, Delegates to the Utility Workers Union of America's 28th Constitutional Convention elected National Officers to lead the 50,000-member union for the next four years. They are: D. Michael Langford, National President; Steven VanSlooten, National Executive Vice President; John Duffy, National Vice President; andGary Ruffner, National Secretary Treasurer. Their elections were uncontested.
by Michael Langford, Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) AFL-CIO National President
Last June, the Rialto City Council rejected a proposal to turn over operation of the city's water and wastewater system to American Water Company. The City Council voted against the plan after Rialto residents made clear they strongly opposed the 30-year privatization scheme and the huge rate hikes that would result.
Despite that decision, the City Council is expected to vote once again Tuesday on this flawed scheme. The Utility Workers Union of America - which represents American Water employees in California and in 10 other states - believes this water privatization plan is still the wrong approach for Rialto ratepayers.
For one thing, the rate hikes proposed by the city would be even higher than the rate increases that were rejected last year. The city's proposal would cause water and sewer rates in Rialto to soar more than 115 percent over four years.
Although the city claims these increases are necessary to pay for improvements in Rialto's water and sewer systems, another reason the proposed rate hikes are so high is that this scheme would also subsidize the huge corporate profits of American Water.
Every study released by the city has shown that Rialto ratepayers would pay a premium in higher rates under any contract with American Water. This is hardly surprising, since American Water's sole interest in this deal is to generate profits for corporate shareholders.
As utility workers, we understand that consumer rates must keep up with the need to make essential investments in the city's water and sewer infrastructure. In our view, however, the fact that Rialto may have to raise rates to pay for critical infrastructure projects makes it even more foolish for the City Council to impose additional rate hikes on Rialto families merely to pad the profits of an out-of-state corporation.
Another reason these proposed rate increases are so large is that the city plans to finance $30 million on the backs of ratepayers in order to fund other development projects. According to Rialto City Manager Mike Story, the city will use this money for development projects such as a new Wal-Mart and Target.
Rialto voters should understand that every dollar the city plans to invest in these projects would be financed through rate increases. Economic development is an important goal, but we believe public funds raised through higher water and sewer rates should be invested in water and sewer projects, rather than being diverted to other municipal programs.
The city manager also claims that Rialto no longer has the skilled staff necessary to continue operating the city's water system. If that is the case, then it makes even less sense for Rialto to sign a 30-year contract for American Water to operate the system. If the City Council approves this privatization scheme, Rialto will give up the operation of its water system for three decades. Instead, we believe Rialto should invest funds that are collected from local ratepayers to rebuild the skilled staff necessary for the city to operate this essential public utility, rather than handing over operation of the system to a profit-driven corporation.
Finally, we believe Rialto leaders should also consider American Water's track record elsewhere. In West Virginia, for example, the state Public Service Commission strongly criticized the company's conduct last year after American Water slashed 10 percent of its workforce in the state because top management complained a rate hike granted by regulators wasn't big enough.
Even though the PSC had approved a 4.4 percent rate increase that fully funded all of the staff positions requested by the company, American Water's CEO publicly threatened to impose "operating cost reductions" in West Virginia because the commission had failed to approve the full 13 percent rate hike the company wanted. The PSC curtailed the company's layoff plans out of concern that the cutbacks could jeopardize essential public services.
For all of these reasons, we believe the proposal to contract out Rialto's water system to American Water is clearly a bad deal for Rialto ratepayers. We urge all Rialto citizens to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday to express their views to their elected leaders. Please also visit our website at StopRialtoWaterRateHikes.com for more information.
D. Michael Langford is the national president of Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. The UWUA represents 50,000 working men and women in the utility industry across the United States, including 2,500 employees of American Water.
Recognizing the importance of digital communication, Utility Workers Union’s (UWUA) Gary Ruffner (in blue jacket, being thanked by an occupier) and Stewart Acuff brought UWUA-donated tech supplies to Occupy DC yesterday. “These allow us to keep our livestream going when we go on long actions” said Kenny, a member of the Tech crew at Occupy DC, admiring the deep cycle marine batteries UWUA brought over. In addition to tech supplies, UWUA donated a 100-cup coffee urn to keep the movement energized. Ruffner and Acuff took the coffeemaker to the Occu-Tea House tent, where occupiers inside jumped up to offer hugs of gratitude. Ruffner and Acuff were quick to respond with thanks of their own.
“Thank you for what you’re all doing,” said Acuff. “Keep it up.” - report/photo by Julia Kann
Bob and Lori Whalen pictured below, delivered Christmas dinner to the Occupy Pittsburgh movement on Christmas day. UWUA System Local 102 provided the holiday feast.
