By Ann C Hodges and Prof. Ellen Dannin, Truthout | News Analysis

The strike has long been labor’s most powerful weapon. Strikes put pressure on the employer – which needs the employees’ labor to run the business – to agree to employees’ demands for fair wages and working conditions.

Strikes are also a public form of expression. Seeing striking workers marching in front of a workplace sends a message to the employer, to the public and to the workers themselves. It says that the workers stand together to fight for decent working conditions and that their dispute with the employer is so important that they are willing to lose pay to fight for a fair workplace. It tells the public and other workers that they might not want to patronize, or work for, the employer unless changes are made. Strikes build solidarity among the workers and help them maintain their resolve under the severe pressure of losing income while on strike. Strikes are also an expression of control by the workers, who may feel that the employer treats them as if they were nothing more than a live form of raw materials.

Congress understood the importance of the strike to labor unions, so it protected strikes in two ways in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). First, strikes are covered by the broad protection Section 7 gives to all group actions directed at improving terms and conditions of employment. Despite this broad protection, which includes strikes, Congress thought it important to repeat in Section 13 that nothing in the law “except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike.”

This week’s installment in our series on the NLRA discusses permanent replacement of strikers, while next week’s installment will discuss other judicially created limits on the right to strike.

Although Congress made it clear that it viewed the strike as a right of utmost importance, the Supreme Court wasted no time in limiting and weakening the right to strike. In 1938, just three years after Congress approved the NLRA, in NLRB v. Mackay Radio (NLRB is the National Labor Relations Board),the Supreme Court said that employers had the right to permanently replace strikers. In other words, the court gave employers legal cover to fire strikers, despite the clear protection for strikes under Section 7 and 13.

While permanent replacement is not precisely the same as discharge, the fear of permanent replacement hangs over the right to strike.

What, you might ask, is the difference between replacing a striker and firing a striker?

A permanently replaced employee has the right to return to the job if, and when, the replacement worker leaves, creating a vacancy. This right may be important to a worker with long service whose replacement leaves soon after the strike ends.

But for many workers, replacement is no different than being fired. It means the replaced strikers must find other work to support themselves and their families. Even though they have a possible right to return to the job months or years later, that right is essentially worthless. Some people call striker replacement “industrial capital punishment.”

Most important, however, is that just the threat of being permanently replaced damages the right to strike. It takes away this important legal right because the great risk that striking workers may lose their jobs may discourage them from striking at all.

Where did the court in Mackay Radio find the right to permanently replace striking workers? It is nowhere to be found in the NLRA. It cannot be found written in any law. The court just presumed that the right to operate a business carries with it the right to replace striking workers permanently. The court did not even require the employer to prove that it could not continue to operate the business with supervisors or temporary replacements before taking the extraordinary step of permanently replacing the legally striking workers. The court gave this presumed right of employers more weight than the employees’ right to strike expressly granted to them by Congress.

In the last 30 years, employers have frequently used permanent replacements to defeat strikes. Just the threat of permanent replacement can destroy solidarity among striking workers. Those who are more easily replaced will be tempted to return to work when a threat is made, while workers with skills that are harder to find will be more able to resist the threats and remain on strike. As a result, bitter divisions can occur, further damaging the workers’ power. Although striker replacement is not the only reason strikes are far less common today, it is certainly an important factor. The reduction in the power of strikes has contributed to the view that the NLRA has outlived its usefulness. One reason for passage of the NLRA was to reduce widespread labor unrest and provide a peaceful method for settling labor disputes. With no realistic strike threat, employers have little need for the NLRA, and many would be happy to see its elimination. Without the judicial amendments, however, the language of the NLRA shines out as a powerful law intended to protect both management and labor alike.

Go To – http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15913-strike-and-youre-out-the-supreme-courts-destruction-of-the-right-to-strike

By Jackie Tortora

We’ve all seen the charts. As union membership rates go down, so goes the middle class and people’s ability to bargain for living wages and a voice on the job.

David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress (CAP) say, in Top 6 Policies to Help the Middle Class that Won’t Cost Taxpayers a Penny, that strengthening people’s ability to organize unions and to bargain collectively will go a long way in rebuilding the middle class.

If unionization rates increased by 10 percentage points—to roughly the level that they were in 1980—the typical middle-class household, unionized or not, would earn $1,501 more per year, according to research conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Madland and Walter suggest the following to ensure workers can form unions:

• The National Labor Relations Board should help put an end to needless election delays and modernize the union election process.
• Congress should pass comprehensive labor-law reform that establishes a fair process for workers to decide on union representation that expands coverage so that more workers are provided the right to organize; establishes meaningful penalties and remedies for workers who are fired or discriminated against for exercising their right to organize; and includes measures to promote productive bargaining between workers and companies.
• Congress should also make the right to join a union a civil right. This would give workers who are discriminated against in exercising their right to organize a private right to sue, just as workers have a right to sue if they face other forms of workplace discrimination.

Other fixes to boost the middle class include raising the minimum wage, allowing workers to earn paid sick leave and lowering monthly housing costs by providing homeowners with principal forgiveness. Read the rest on CAP’s website.

Go To – http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Organizing-Bargaining/Want-to-Build-the-Middle-Class-Make-Sure-Workers-Can-Easily-Form-and-Join-Unions

By Winnie Stachelberg and Crosby Burns |

It currently is perfectly legal in America to fire someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT. Rather than being evaluated on their skills, qualifications, and ability to contribute to the job, LGBT workers are all too often not hired, not promoted, or, in the worst cases, fired from their jobs solely due to their sexual orientation and gender identity—characteristics completely irrelevant to job performance. And in a majority of states and under federal law, these employees have no legal recourse to challenge this discrimination.

This week, however, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives are planning to introduce a bill to change that. If passed and signed into law, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, or ENDA, would prohibit most employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would finally put in place uniform and comprehensive protections for the LGBT workforce in all 50 states.

Considering the high rates of discrimination that LGBT workers experience, this law is sorely needed. Discrimination can force LGBT workers into unemployment, leaving them without an income to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, and otherwise make ends meet. Workplace discrimination is not only a problem for workers though; it also presents problems for businesses by introducing inefficiencies and costs that cut into profits and undermine businesses’ bottom lines.

While ENDA has been introduced in every session of Congress save one since 1994, the last time it received a vote in the Senate was in 1996. More than a decade and a half later, there still isn’t a federal law in place protecting LGBT workers from bias and discrimination. Luckily, earlier this year Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) vowed as Chairman of the Senate HELP committee—which oversees ENDA’s introduction—to move the bill forward this year. It’s high time the senate takes up this important bill once again for a vote.

With the bill’s introduction this week, here are the top 10 things you need to know about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

LGBT workers experience high rates of discrimination

LGBT employees continue to face widespread discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Specifically, 8 percent to 17 percent of LGB workers report being passed over for a job or being fired because of their sexual orientation; 10 percent to 28 percent received a negative performance evaluation or were passed over for a promotion because they were LGB; and 7 percent to 41 percent of LGB workers encountered harassment, abuse, or antigay vandalism on the job. Rates of discrimination are especially high among people of color who identify as LGBT.

Transgender workers in particular experience high rates of employment discrimination. An astonishing 90 percent of transgender people report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job or report having taken action such as hiding who they really are to avoid it. As with LGB employees, rates of employment discrimination are especially pronounced among transgender people of color.

Employment discrimination is bad for both employers and employees

Employment discrimination is a lose-lose situation for both the employees who are discriminated against and for the employers who allow discrimination to go unchecked.

For employees, discrimination often means being forced into the ranks of the unemployed, leaving them without an income to support themselves and their families. In this way, discrimination is largely to blame for many of the economic insecurities among LGBT families, who, contrary to commonly held stereotypes, report lower annual earnings and higher rates of poverty than non-LGBT families.

For employers, discrimination is an economically unwise business practice. Discrimination cripples a businesses’ ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest. It diminishes overall job performance and productivity and closes businesses off to potentially profitable consumer markets.

The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies support these policies

When you consider the fact that discrimination hurts businesses, it is not surprising that nearly all Fortune 500 companies have taken steps to protect their workers. Companies that don’t protect and support LGBT workers are increasingly out of step with corporate America. Of the Fortune 500 companies, 87 percent of businesses have established nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 56 percent include gender identity. That number increases as you climb the fortune ladder: Of the Fortune 100 companies, 93 percent include sexual orientation and 82 percent include gender identity in their corporate nondiscrimination policies.

No federal law prevents workers from being fired because they are LGBT

No federal law currently exists to prohibit employers from discriminating against LGBT people. Unfortunately, 9 out of 10 voters mistakenly believe LGBT workers already have federal protections against employment discrimination. A majority of states similarly do not offer employment protections to the LGBT workforce. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; 16 and the District of Columbia do so on the basis of gender identity.

ENDA would provide comprehensive protections to LGBT workers in all 50 states

If passed and signed into law, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect private and public employees from employment discrimination on the basis of perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity. ENDA is similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which already protects workers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as well as to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which protects against employment discrimination based on disability status. ENDA would only apply to employers with 15 or more employees, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, would enforce it.

Small businesses report having LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination policies

A Center for American Progress poll reveals that many small businesses already have policies in place that prohibit discrimination against LGBT employees. Seven out of 10 small businesses prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 6 out of 10 small businesses already prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. What’s more, small-business owners report that there were virtually no costs associated with implementing and maintaining these nondiscrimination policies. In fact, most research indicates that nondiscrimination policies are a net positive for large and small businesses.

ENDA enjoys broad public support

In a Center for American Progress poll, nearly three-fourths—73 percent—of the American public supports protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination. This support cuts across political party affiliation, with 81 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 66 percent of Republicans supporting workplace nondiscrimination laws for LGBT people. Looking at key demographic groups, Catholics and seniors solidly favor employment protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity with 74 percent support and 61 percent support, respectively. Even among people who identify themselves as feeling generally unfavorable toward gay people, a full 50 percent support workplace nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT population. The small business community also strongly supports enacting ENDA: 63 percent of small-business owners have voiced their support for the bill.

ENDA contains an exemption for religious organizations

In addition to advancing workplace equality for gay and transgender employees, ENDA also includes a critical provision that safeguards religious organizations’ constitutional rights and religious freedoms. Specifically, Section 6 of ENDA provides religious organizations, which are broadly defined, with a substantial exemption that allows them to continue to take sexual orientation and gender identity into account when making employment decisions. In this way, ENDA’s religious exemption is broader than other laws that provide exemptions to religious organizations with respect to employment. ENDA’s religious-protection language is partly why dozens of faith-based communities and religious organizations support ENDA.

ENDA explicitly prohibits quotas, preferential treatment, and federal data collection

Looking technically at the bill, Section 8 of ENDA explicitly prohibits employers from giving preferential treatment to LGBT workers. It similarly prevents employers from establishing quotas for employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It simply protects LGBT workers from unfair or biased decision making in matters of employment, which would level a currently very uneven playing field.

ENDA also prohibits the EEOC from collecting data about employees’ sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s worth noting, however, that the bill does not prohibit employers from collecting data about their LGBT employees themselves. Should they choose to do so—as some businesses in the private sector already do—they can then provide those statistics to the EEOC.

President Obama can sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers

While the Senate can and should vote on ENDA in this session, it is unlikely that the conservative House of Representatives will take up this critical piece of legislation, let alone put it to a vote. Given ENDA’s dismal chance of becoming law in the near future, President Barack Obama can and should issue an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers. Presidents from both political parties have issued similar executive orders that prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. As the chief executive of the federal government, President Obama should make it clear that discrimination against LGBT workers will not be tolerated if you want to do business with the government.

At its core, ENDA’s premise is simple: Nobody should be denied employment or forced out of a job due to their sexual orientation and gender identity. Americans from all demographic and political backgrounds support this bill. It’s time for Congress to take action and finally turn it into law.

Go To – http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2013/04/24/61294/10-things-to-know-about-the-employment-non-discrimination-act/

Winnie Stachelberg is the Executive Vice President for External Affairs and Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress.

Congress is trying to push through legislation that would allow employers to stop giving workers overtime pay.

Click Here (http://nysaflcio.org/overtime/) To Sign and SHARE PETITION: Hands off my 40 hour work week!

The House of Representatives has renewed its decades-old attack on the 40-hour workweek. Once again, some members of Congress are pushing so-called “comp time” legislation that would allow employers to stop giving workers any extra pay for overtime work.

H.R. 1406, the so-called “Working Families Flexibility Act” would take away “Overtime Pay” and replace it with “Comp Time”.   This bill is not about providing employees with greater flexibility, but rather about providing employers with greater flexibility to not pay overtime!

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established the 40-hour workweek to allow employees to spend more time away from work and encourage employers to hire more staff when workloads increase. The “Working Families Flexibility Act” however would encourage employers to demand longer hours because it would allow employers to receive the benefits of overtime work at no additional cost. Employers could pay workers nothing at all for overtime when the work is performed, and schedule “compensatory time” only at their convenience. Under H.R. 1406, mandatory overtime would become cheaper for employers and result in more unpredictable work schedules and higher day care costs for workers.

Send the letter below to your congressperson today!

Ask AFSCME DC’s #33 & #47, the Philadelphia Fire Fighters’ Union and the Philadelphia Police Department/FOP — is there any city union or just any union in this city that Mayor Nutter doesn’t have a problem with?

Here’s a little advice in case he’s wondering. If the Mayor doesn’t want large crowds showing up at City Hall and interrupting his speeches, he should try working with people instead of against them. Being at odds with one or two organizations in the course of a four year term is typical, but all four organizations on a constant basis? Well then, it brings up the question that is on everyone’s mind: Why Does Mayor Nutter Hate Unions So Much?

Is it because he’s against collective bargaining, or the 40-hour work week, fair wages or benefits or the other conditions that unions have achieved that have made them the voice of the middle class in America?

Is it because he didn’t get union support during his initial mayoral campaign as area unions split their vote among several other of the candidates and the Mayor walked on in under the union community’s radar?

Here we have a lame duck Democratic mayor in a largely Democratic city who doesn’t have to worry about re-election or setting the table for his party to ensure the next Mayor is a Democrat, so what does he really have to lose, right?

Well, maybe the legacy of his administration, which will be over soon enough, thankfully, and which will go down in the minds of working families as one of the least popular in the history of Philadelphia.

Point of information to our Philadelphia area unions: unlike the first time Nutter won, the next time we have a mayoral election, let’s please unite in solidarity together to support the one candidate who best supports and respects our union standards before we get stuck with another nutter like this mutter!!