Union members push bill to give striking workers unemployment benefits

March 22, 2024 by

Autoworkers in Hudson, Wis., picketed during their union’s “Stand Up Strike” in 2023.

After a wave of collective action saw American workers improve their pay and working conditions by going on strike, Minnesota lawmakers are weighing a change to the state’s unemployment insurance system that would lighten the economic hardship union members here face during a labor dispute.

Legislation introduced earlier this month by DFLers in the House and Senate would make some workers in Minnesota eligible for unemployment benefits when they are on strike.

Advocates, including several union members who testified in support of the bill last month, said giving workers more leverage at the bargaining table is good for working families, local communities and the economy as a whole.

The cost to the state’s unemployment insurance fund, meanwhile, would be “negligible,” according to Jake Schwitzer, director of the North Star Policy Action, a research group that issued a report on the idea earlier this year. That report estimated the proposed expansion would amount to 0.3% or less of existing unemployment claims.

The benefits, union members said, would far outweigh those costs.

More equal footing

More often than not, employers enter a work stoppage from a position of strength, with deep pockets to cover any losses in productivity. Workers, particularly those in low-wage jobs, begin feeling the impact of lost wages almost immediately.

That dynamic, workers told lawmakers, gives employers an incentive to wait things out and force workers to capitulate to their demands. It’s what Dean Benson, a retired St. Paul Park refinery worker, said Marathon tried to do to members of Teamsters Local 120 when they went on strike for safety and job security three years ago.

“We won that strike, but only because we had the support we needed to keep that fight on,” Benson said during a Senate committee hearing on the bill March 13. “That isn’t always the case because Marathon did what many large corporations try to do when their workers are seeking a fair contract. They tried to starve us out.”

Minnesota’s unemployment benefit covers about 50% of a worker’s average weekly wage, up to a maximum of $890. That’s the right amount, AFSCME Council 5 Interim Executive Director Bart Anderson said, to give workers more bargaining power while keeping the strike a last resort.

“Going on strike will still be financially challenging, but at least workers won’t be starved back to work,” Anderson said.

Community gains

Other supporters argued that the legislation could reduce the number of work stoppages in Minnesota. Employers would know that union members have access to a partial wage replacement if they strike, giving them reason to bargain a timely, equitable contract.

With record profits in the bank, the Big 3 automakers could have reached a deal before members of the United Auto Workers went on strike last September, UAW member John Kontzelmann told lawmakers.

“The strike didn’t have to take five weeks because these employers knew what their top offer was,” said Kontzelmann, who was on strike at the Twin Cities Stellantis parts facility. “Managers didn’t sacrifice a penny while they tried to starve us out, and despite pleading poverty for weeks they ended up agreeing to a record four-year contract.”

The autoworkers’ contracts, with wage increases of 25% or more, also show the ripple effects of union power at the bargaining table. After the UAW settled, non-union automakers across the U.S. moved quickly to increase their wages by double-digit percentages – the so-called “UAW bump.”

“This bill benefits not just workers, but the entire economy,” Rep. Kaela Berg (D-Burnsville), lead House author of the bill, said. “When workers are earning a living wage, they are contributing to the local economy.”

– Michael Moore, Union Advocate editor

Filed Under: Community, Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Ban on captive audience meetings advances in Minnesota Legislature

May 3, 2023 by

Patrick Kennedy, a licensed social worker, recounted the chilling effect captive audience meetings had on a campaign to organize his workplace two years ago.

After the pandemic hit three years ago, Patrick Kennedy and his co-workers at a local community mental health center became concerned about abrupt and unilateral changes management began making at their workplace.

Talk of forming a union soon turned into a full-fledged organizing campaign with Office and Professional Employees (OPEIU) Local 12. Sixteen months later workers were poised to vote in a union election, with public support from nearly 60% of the agency’s 130 workers.

That’s when the “mandatory information sessions” with their bosses began, Kennedy said.

“In one meeting we were told that wage increases were just about to roll out, but could be delayed another year if we were to unionize,” he said. “In another, the CEO assured us that a union would only harm our clients.”

The meetings, according to Kennedy, a licensed social worker, had a “shocking” impact on his co-workers’ organizing drive. By the time workers voted, support for unionizing had dropped to 42%, and the effort failed.

Testifying before a Minnesota House committee earlier this legislative session, Kennedy and other workers urged lawmakers to support legislation that would make it illegal for employers to compel their employees to attend meetings where bosses promote religious or political views, including views on collective bargaining.

“The person who signs your paycheck should not be allowed to force you, under threat of discipline or retaliation, to listen to their opinions about your legally protected right to choose whether to join a union,” Kennedy said.

The proposed legislation has since passed both the House and Senate as part of omnibus labor policy bills. It has been a top priority for unions this legislative session, along with paid family leave, the infrastructure jobs bill, earned sick and safe time and fully funded public services.

Captive audience meetings have come under scrutiny in recent years from policymakers and analysts looking to understand why union membership has remained flat despite polling that shows interest in forming unions at a near-record high.

Minnesota AFL-CIO President Bernie Burnham (L) testified in support of the captive audience meeting legislation, authored by Rep. Kaela Berg in the House.

Minnesota AFL-CIO President Bernie Burnham, head of the state’s largest labor federation, said captive audience meetings have become even more common – employers use them in an estimated 90% of union elections, according to one study – during a recent surge in organizing activity both in Minnesota and across the U.S.

“These meetings have nothing to do with the actual jobs that workers do for an employer,” Burnham told legislators. “In fact, many workers describe them as raw intimidation.”

Minnesota lawmakers are not alone in seeking to protect workers’ right to not listen to unwanted political or religious speech. Connecticut passed a ban on captive audience meetings last year, and Oregon has had one on the books for over a decade.

The National Labor Relations Board may soon act, too. A recent memo issued by NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo urged members to reverse the board’s precedent of allowing employers to force their workers to listen to anti-union speech, calling it a “license to coerce” and a “fundamental misunderstanding of employers’ speech rights.”

The Minnesota bill’s lead House author, Rep. Kaela Berg (D-Burnsville), said employers would still be allowed to encourage workers to listen to their political or religious views if her bill becomes law. “If the employee wants to have that discussion with the employer, that’s great,” she said. “This just says it cannot be required, and you cannot be punished if you say that’s just not for me.”

That’s a right Kennedy and other workers who have experienced captive audience meetings can only wish they would have had.

Nate Krantz, who went through an organizing drive while working as a certified nursing assistant at a local health care facility, told lawmakers he “noticed that my heart-rate tracker on my Apple watch showed a spike in my heart rate each time I had to sit through one of those meetings.”

Jeff Schreiner, a member of Teamsters Local 120 who helped lead a 10-year organizing drive at Sysco in St. Cloud, said regular captive audience meetings created a “psychologically stressful” work environment, pitted workers against each other and spread misinformation.

“It’s almost like there’s a script that companies follow,” he said after listening to testimony from workers in other industries.

“Employers use mandatory meetings to unfairly influence workers,” Kennedy said. “If the meetings didn’t influence workers, they wouldn’t be happening.”

Filed Under: Labor Voices, Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Labor values are lived, not learned for union members on the 2020 ballot

October 28, 2020 by

Members of labor unions make the best labor-endorsed candidates. Fortunately for working families, several union members are running for office this year with the Labor 2020 endorsement.

“We know that when union members hold public office, they champion our values and work hard to shift the balance of power for working people,” said Bill McCarthy, president of the state’s largest labor federation, the Minnesota AFL-CIO.

A power shift is exactly what Josiah Hill, an English teacher in the Stillwater school system, has in mind with his campaign to represent Senate District 39, which straddles the St. Croix River in Washington County.

Republicans hold a narrow, three-seat majority in the Senate, and they have used it to thwart progress on “environmental protection, public-school funding and expanding access to affordable health care coverage,” Hill said. Unseating his incumbent opponent would be a step toward a labor majority in the chamber.

Hill has served six terms as president of his union, the St. Croix Education Association. It’s an experience he considers the “perfect training exercise” for the Legislature because it involved reaching compromise, not scoring political points.

“I’m solutions focused,” Hill said. “I’m not interested in short-term wins. The work I’ve had to engage in makes it necessary to listen deeply to all parties and to find solutions that allow us to move forward with the resources available.”

Like Hill, Erin Preese is a union educator vying to unseat an incumbent. Preese’s work teaching English-language learners in the Lakeville schools has informed the type of legislator she hopes to be for the residents of House District 58A.

In fact, it’s why she’s running in the first place. Two years ago, as a member of the Lakeville Education Association’s committee on government relations, Preese paid a visit to her House representative – now her opponent – to advocate for fair funding of public schools.

“It was frustrating,” Preese remembered. “Our current representative, he has two daughters in private school, and sometimes it’s hard to understand life experiences that are not your own.”

Preese said she plans to continue teaching in Lakeville if she wins Nov. 3, with a leave of absence during the legislative session.

“The decisions made at the Capitol have real effects on people here at our school, on their everyday lives,” she said. “Working will help me stay grounded. I think maybe if you’re at the Capitol too much you can get caught up in the politics.”

Jim Swenson makes a point of keeping politics out of the City of North Branch’s business. A member of Local 110 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Swenson is seeking reelection this fall to a second two-year term as the Chisago County community’s mayor.

North Branch is growing, and Swenson’s focus has been on making that growth sustainable for everyone. Building permits are up over 250% this year, and the city has seen 96 new homes built already in 2020. A 48-unit, income-based housing development has opened, and last year the city added a 20-unit apartment complex for people struggling with mental-health issues and homelessness.

In August, Gov. Tim Walz visited North Branch to present the city with a “Telecommuter Forward!” award for its efforts to expand broadband internet access citywide – something of critical importance to workers during the pandemic. During the ceremony, Swenson said, he pulled Walz aside and touted the nonpartisan, community effort that led to North Branch’s success.

“This is the way government needs to work, with two people from totally separate parties working together,” Swenson told Walz. “Can you believe that? It’s the way government should work – for the people.”

Bringing people together is, of course, what unions do. So it should come as no surprise Swenson and other candidates with union backgrounds are good at it. As a member of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) for the last six years, House District 58B candidate Sara Wolf has seen firsthand the power of collective voice.

“It’s telling that when the topic of health insurance comes up and someone says, ‘I’m union,’ everybody knows that it means they have good insurance!” Wolf laughed.

Kaela Berg, a flight attendant seeking office in House District 56B, remembered how she felt upon joining her union, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, 17 years ago. It was “a spark that was ignited that became a fire in my belly for fighting for working families,” she said.

Since signing that union card, Berg has taken an active role in local movements for economic and environmental justice, serving a stint as director of the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition. Now she’s ready to go to work in the Legislature, fighting to advance the priorities she and all labor-endorsed candidates share, like accessible health care, fully funded schools and economic opportunity for everyone.

“They aren’t just legislative talking points to me,” Berg said. “They are my lived experience. I’m passionate about a Minnesota that works for working families.”

Filed Under: Labor Voices, Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Kaela Berg: TPP is dead, but fight for fair trade isn’t over

December 15, 2016 by

web.fasttrack-KaelaBergMany of us are left reeling from the results of the 2016 election and what it will mean for this country moving forward. The future of U.S. trade policy is unclear, as is much of the political and economic landscape.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has officially been declared “dead.” That means that, in its current form, it will not come before Congress for a vote during a lame-duck session or under the incoming administration. That is a huge victory, one that is wholly due to the incredible work of our fair trade partners, both here in Minnesota and across the nation!

We defeated the TPP by taking our collective voices to the streets in our communities – and in the halls of Congress.

We were successful in pushing back votes on so-called “Fast Track,” also known as trade promotion authority (TPA), which did ultimately pass. We asked for our governing representatives to take a firm and public stand on TPA, the TPP and trade policy overall. Our fair trade champions did not let us down, promising full support in opposing the TPP, and also doing diligent work in Washington to urge their colleagues to do the same.

Around the TPP, we focused on public outreach and education, hosting joint events with our member organizations where we could engage in thoughtful dialogue with community, faith, labor, environmental and student groups to provide accurate information and strategic tools to broaden our mobilizing scope.

To everyone who helped us in this tireless and relentless work, I thank you, I am humbled by you, I see you and am honored to stand in solidarity with you.

So here we are, poised on the brink of a new presidential administration, and the TPP as we know it is no longer a threat. While we can all take a moment to savor and reflect on a job well done, we still have more battles on the horizon.

As a result of Brexit – the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union – negotiations for two other massive, looming trade agreements have stalled. But those agreements, the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), will likely become a focus of the new administration.

Additionally, President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on promises to “tear up NAFTA” and redefine how the U.S. does trade. If he does, in fact, make good on those promises, our work will be cut out for us. Let me be clear: Trump’s pro-corporate trade agenda is not our trade agenda.

Working families still need us. Communities both here and across the globe that will suffer most under the repressive and violent nature of U.S. trade and military policy still need us. The necessity to address climate change is more critical than ever, and for that we are still needed.

These are just a few reasons for remaining vigilant in holding our government accountable to the will of the people rather than the siren call of capitalism, and why a shift towards fair and inclusive trade policy must prevail. While uncertainty abounds, I am confident that our coalition will take up with renewed resolve, energy and dedication the call to action.

– Kaela Berg is director of the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition, which unites more than 40 Minnesota labor, faith, environmental, social justice and family farm organizations working in support of trade policy that respects working people, family farmers, the environment and democracy. Learn more about the organization on its Facebook page.

Filed Under: Labor Voices Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Kaela Berg: Trans-Pacific Partnership a threat to U.S. jobs

March 24, 2016 by
web.fasttrack-KaelaBerg

Kaela Berg is director of the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition.

Trade. It may not be at the front of your mind today, or even most days, but it should be. After 20 years of living with the disastrous impacts of NAFTA and every trade agreement since, we are now faced with the largest free trade agreement we’ve yet seen, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Often touted as “NAFTA on Steroids,” the TPP will affect 40 percent of the world economy and continue the hemorrhaging of American jobs – jobs that we can ill afford to lose. The TPP already has been signed by representatives of all 12 countries involved, and it now awaits ratification by the various governing bodies of each participating nation.

The images of shuttered factories in once-thriving cities of industry are all too familiar in recent history. The lack of manufacturing that breeds a strong and steady economy in this country is astounding, and it leaves far too many able workers with few options. Working families today, are struggling to make ends meet, to send their children to college and to have the ability to retire not only to enjoy the fruits of so many years of labor, but to rest when their bodies need it most.

The effects of trade are woven into the fabric of our lives – in the quality of the air we breathe, the food we eat and the jobs we may or may not have.

The current and irresponsible way that giant corporations and governments negotiate international treaties will always result in dire consequences for the most vulnerable. I saw that firsthand during my two trips to Colombia last year.

The labor rights, human rights and environmental justice violations in Colombia were both alarming and a direct result of U.S. trade policy. The Labor Action Plan, which is a mechanism put in place supposedly to ensure the protection of workers under the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is ineffective in its practical application. That’s no surprise, given the provision never had any “teeth” in its genesis. Even NAFTA had an outline that seemingly provided some protections for workers, but in fruition such protections were negligible.

Simply put, free trade agreements do not work for workers. Not here at home, and not in the countries in which we already trade. The TPP promises more of the same: more American jobs lost, more stagnant wages and more cheap and illegal goods flooding our markets. It keeps the scales tipped firmly in favor of the multinationals and keeps American workers participating in an involuntary race to the bottom.

Whether it’s picketing in response to being locked out of steel mills in Pennsylvania for months at a time or standing up for miners on the Iron Range, as workers we must do what we do best: Stand Up, Fight Back! We cannot allow another trade agreement to continue the rampant eradication of our jobs, the stagnation of our wages and the theft of our opportunity to offer our children a better way of life.

In a world where globalization is inevitable and also an amazing opportunity, we must be mindful of creating a path for fair trade if we are to nourish and grow an economy that works for all people. There is something that each of us can do. This election season I urge you to reach out to your lawmakers and initiate a dialogue asking them to vote against the TPP. A vote against the TPP is a vote for working families!

– Kaela Berg is director of the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition. Founded in 1991, the organization unites family farmers, unions and environmental groups to promote and support fair trade policy and global justice.

Filed Under: Labor Voices Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,