|
|
|
|
Weighing In on the AFL-CIO Restructuring Debate WHAT THE PRESIDENTS COMMISSION REALLY MEANS WHEN THEY SAY...
by Martin Johns
My initial interest in becoming a steward was the result of an abusive supervisor who destroyed someone I cared for very much. As I witnessed this destruction of a human being for no good reason, all I could do was be there for her. And I wondered…isn't there something that someone could have done to prevent this needless tragedy? Isn't there something more the Union could have done? And, more importantly, is there something more that I could have done? So I volunteered for the Union Army. Surely, if I did the work, I would find something that worked--some Agency, some Law--something, somewhere, that said you cannot destroy a human being and just get away with it. So I dove in, full-throttle. I started with the Contract. You have to start somewhere. Within a week, I bought my own personal copy of the ELM. I went to other manuals, as well. There was plenty of useful "language." For example, I learned that the Zero Tolerance Policy (codified in the Joint Statement) was supposed to apply to everyone in the Postal Service equally (yes, supervisors too). I think we all know the truth. When my grievances became bogged down in the system, I began looking elsewhere. I read everything I could about OSHA, OWCP, The Labor Board, EEO, on and on. I tried them. I tried them all. I was taken aback, not so much by management's lack of concern for such laws as they were breaking, but by the complete lack of concern from those agencies whose laws were being broken. I continued searching and reading and trying, with very little to show in the way of positive results, until I was literally drowning in the swamp of it all. And then someone else I cared for very much became the victim of management's callous disregard for every legal, moral and ethical tenet that exists or has ever existed. I could not get through to management on legal grounds; they ignored any appeal to common sense or to humanity. And, for all of my acquired knowledge, all I could do, ultimately, was be there for her. And……….then………..at some point……….it dawned upon me…………that that………..is a very………..very…………very……….special and uncommon thing. For all that I could not, cannot, do, I can be there for people. I can do that and do it well. I have always done that. It is my gift. Hey, it's not the cure for cancer or anything. But it is how I can, and do, make a difference. And the world would be a sadder place without that gift. And so, in the end analysis, I learned that what I was searching for was something I already had. Yes, Dorothy, you've had the power all along. I know there are many other reasons God put me on that Union path, but to find--and appreciate--your place in the world…that is more than enough for me. Each of us has the power to be good or to be evil. That choice is yours and yours alone. The tragedy of our world is not that so many have chosen to be evil, but that so few have made any choice at all. When we act, and when we fail to act, we are responsible. There is no escape clause, no acceptable excuse. Go ahead and tell Saint Peter "I was only following orders," or "Business is business," or even "The devil made me do it." At every moment of your life, you have FULL authority, FULL responsibility, and FULL accountability. I will PROMISE you this; if you do the right thing, you will be protected. There will be moments when it does not seem to be so--life is full of trials and tribulations--but, if you do the right thing, you will always be taken care of in the end. I KNOW this as certainly as I know that day follows night. (Day still follows night, right?) I do believe that a true Union, hundreds or thousands of good people doing the right thing TOGETHER, can put down any evil even Satan, himself, could throw our way. I just don't sense that everyone understands that, yet. Take a leap of faith, someday, and watch the miracles happen. Until then…. Having learned what I was meant to learn, I have chosen to close this chapter and move on. Call me self-righteous, self-indulgent, delusional, selfish…call it burn-out or mid-life crisis. I really don't have the stomach to witness any more needless tragedies. What will I do? I don't know. Wherever I go, I'm sure my gift will be needed. Wherever I go, I know it will all work out. postscript: We all have special abilities and gifts. Whatever yours may be, the Union would certainly benefit from them. I recommend the experience without reservation. You'd learn a lot about the world, about people. I mean that in a good way. Who knows, you might even learn something about yourself. Weighing In on the AFL-CIO Restructuring Debate by Martin Johns In July 2005, the member unions of the AFL-CIO will meet in convention. Topping the agenda is a proposal to restructure the organization along industry lines and direct resources toward organizing. Red Bank Local member Martin Johns takes a look at the past to determine Labor's best hope for the future, defining along the way the Hegelian dialectic. If you want to learn where you’re going, you have to understand where you’ve been. The Knights of Labor were among America’s first labor organizations. It was they who first noted that “An injury to one is the concern of all.” In short order, however, the Knights of Labor were viewed by many workers as being too closely aligned with management. They would even supply scab labor to businesses whose employees went on strike. Enter the American Federation of Labor. As with the Knights of Labor, the AFL began with the idea of uniting all American workers in the struggle against the forces of capital. However, like their predecessor, the AFL was a “trade union,” meaning it only organized skilled workers. From the outset, the AFL rejected vast numbers of unskilled workers, effectively establishing a caste system separating themselves from multitudes of immigrants, women and minorities. But the AFL became the dominant labor organization, in large part by promising its member unions autonomy—their own power-base, their own fiefdoms True believers, like Eugene Debs and William Haywood, were horrified to see AFL bosses arriving at conventions in limousines, decked out in the most expensive attire, flashing jewelry and wads of $100 bills. Surely, they reasoned, there was something wrong with this picture when so many workers still labored interminable hours for poverty level wages. Enter the Industrial Workers of the World. Founded in 1905, the IWW advanced the notion of “one union” and believed the best way to reach that goal was to organize workers by industry, rather than have individual unions competing for the same workers. Initially, they went after trade workers, like the AFL. But the “Wobblies” hit their stride when they began organizing the unskilled workers that the AFL had no use for. Some of America’s finest labor leaders—Mother Jones, Joe Hill, Lucy Parsons, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn—emerged from the IWW, which recognized all workers as equals regardless of race, color, sex or nationality. At first the AFL ignored them, but they soon saw a use for the IWW. The AFL used the Wobblies as their foot-soldiers, sending them to organize strikes, stage free-speech fights, and, generally, raise hell. Many IWW leaders gave their lives fighting for the 8 hour workday, workplace safety, higher wages and an end to child labor. Wobblies filled the jails wherever they went. They were hated by the robber barons of big business. Then the AFL would swoop in, using the Wobblies as their leverage. They sold themselves to business as the rational alternative to the radical rabble. The AFL were a business—their commodity was labor peace and their sales pitch was “it’s either us or the IWW.” Businessmen were more than happy to negotiate with the AFL, given those terms. Afterwards, with most of the Wobblies dead or in jail, the AFL rewrote history, declaring that the IWW had been largely irrelevant in the gains of organized labor. The powers-that-be viewed the IWW as such a threat that they seized as many of their writings and possessions as they could and destroyed them. The AFL joined authorities in declaring the IWW a failed experiment and returned its focus to a “skilled workers only” approach. Gradually, membership eroded and management began imposing wage cuts and reductions in benefits. Advancements in technology, and new waves of immigrants, resulted in ever more unskilled—and unorganized—workers. By 1932, newspapers were declaring that organized labor had become “irrelevant.” Enter the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Breaking from the AFL in 1935, the CIO, like the IWW, organized the unorganized, the unskilled, immigrants and minorities. The AFL and CIO used each other as leverage and, when the dust settled, 35% of American workers were union members. In 1955, the AFL and CIO merged. Where once Joe Hill had said, “Don’t mourn for me—ORGANIZE,” George Meany, president of labor’s huge coalition declared “WHY organize?” And labor, once again, took the role of “junior partner” to management. But the economy, the world, has changed again. Union membership is in rapid decline. “Labor peace” means pay cuts and benefit give-backs for the rank-and-file. Unions are, again, fighting against each other for the same workers while largely ignoring the vast numbers of unskilled, unorganized workers—not just here, but in other countries as well, for competition is now global—and management can play the unions, and the organized and unorganized, against each other with ease. Enter Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. Stern has proposed the model advanced by the IWW, 100 years ago, a model favoring industry based unions and dedicated to organizing the unorganized. The John Sweeney faction, APWU’s Bill Burrus among them, doesn’t like the fact that Stern has threatened to withdraw from the AFL-CIO if his plan is rejected. They argue that the forced mergers the Stern plan would require are not consistent with the democratic philosophy of unionism. This argument would carry a lot more weight if, in fact, union members had a vote in this. We don’t. Only the union bosses, much better paid and more nattily attired than their members, will have a vote on OUR future course. For all his abrasiveness, there is no question that Stern has been hugely successful; the SEIU is growing by leaps and bounds while other unions are shrinking just as quickly. Stern's troops are active and motivated. He’s winning. He is winning by doing what the IWW and CIO did before him—organizing the unorganized, the unskilled, immigrants and minorities. Meanwhile, other unions are accepting whatever crumbs management throws their way. Me, I’d rather stand with the guy who is winning. It’s hard to rationalize “staying the course” when the ship clearly seems to be sinking. Besides, this is simply history repeating itself—a Hegelian dialectic. The Hegelian dialectic states that a thing cannot exist without its counterpart. As time goes on, opposites grow to be more and more like each other until they are more alike than not. This, inevitably, creates a need for a new counterpart. Ask yourself, are my national union leaders, today, more like me or more like management? At the end of the day, we should all hope that, even if the Stern plan is not adopted, the “insurgents” do split from the AFL-CIO. History says it would give Labor the best leverage it's had in 50 years. by Dan Sullivan (Southwest Michigan Area Local) from the pages of 21st Century Postal Worker The health
and safety of its workers has never been a high priority in the Postal Service.
In the early 20th Century postal workers often came down with serious lung
diseases caused from working in dusty mail rooms. by Martin Johns RIGHT NOW,
Postal Reform legislation is being drafted. Hearings are still to be held, but
Postal Reform legislation is being drafted. Only the Mailing Industry and the
Postal Service have had their say, but Postal Reform legislation is being
drafted. No rank-and-file Postal employees will ever testify, but Postal Reform
legislation is being drafted.
by Martin Johns While I wasn't always able to find the hearings of the President's Commission on my TV, it was enlightening when I did. For example, I will never forget this exchange with Jane Weizman, Senior Consultant of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, the firm that conducted the "pay for performance" study for the Commission. Ms. Weizman stated that the total compensation package for Postal Workers exceeded that of their private sector counterparts. One of the Commissioners said, "And you know this because?" "Well," she said, "because they (the USPS) told me." These are not exact quotes. The official minutes state that, "Ms. Weizman stated that she did not have a specific point of reference. She elaborated that the statement was based on interviews with the Postal Service and testimony filed before the Commission and not on any independent assessment." Such a nice way of saying, "They made it up." Circular logic is a specialty of Postal management. They frequently do things to justify having done them. To justify changes, they say there's a "crisis." To demonstrate the crisis, they point to the changes. We all see this with overtime. They say they call overtime because there's a lot of mail. How do they know there's a lot of mail? Because they called overtime. Look at their so-called daily "volume" reports. The "volume" reports don't measure volume at all, but rather tabulate work hours. In my long-winded way, what I'm getting at, here, is that so much false information is being presented as gospel. The truth WAS presented to the Commission, but it wasn't what they wanted to hear...so they didn't. Let's start with the most prevalent myth out there: MYTH #1: 80% or more of USPS operating expenses are employee compensation. This is a good example of how "figures don't lie, but liars figure." According to economic consulting company Joel Popkin and Co., total wages and benefits for all bargaining unit employees account for 56.8% of operating expenses (APWU represented employees only 26%). That's a decline of about 10% from 20 years ago. It is only upon adding in the "compensation" of managers--right up to the PMG himself--that the number reaches 76%. MYTH #2: This high percentage of labor costs is out of line with comparable private sector companies. In fact, the percentage of total expenses that are labor costs at the Postal Service is only marginally higher than those at UPS and FedEx, and neither of those companies goes to "every home, every day." Delivering mail is a labor-intensive business, and labor is going to make up a large percentage of the cost of that business. MYTH #3: Mail volume is down and it ain't comin' back. According to information on the USPS web site, First Class mail volume is down. Overall mail volume is up. Total mail volume peaked in 2000, at around 208 billion pieces. USPS projects over 207 billion pieces for 2003, and a record 209 billion for 2004. FCM may be down a billion pieces, for the moment, but Third Class mail is up between 2 and 3 billion pieces. In fact, according to DM News (a Private Mailer web site), 3C is about to bypass FCM altogether. Which begs the question, who should be subsidizing who? MYTH #4: Mail volume decline is due to the Internet explosion. This myth pre-supposes that mail volume is in an inevitable downward spiral, which its not. From 1996 to 2001, First Class Mail volume grew at 5.5% per year, while total mail volume grew at 12% per year. More to the point, there are simply no facts to bear this myth out. Like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, it becomes a "fact" simply because people believe it to be so. In testimony before the Commission, a Dr. Tolley found that the Internet affects the mailing habits of only about one half of one percent of the population. Time and money are far bigger influences. Leaving aside 2002, when terrorism and anthrax likely kept mail volume low, it is at least AS likely, if not more so, that the economic recession has caused any existent downturn in FCM volume. This would be consistent with historical context. It might also explain why UPS volume has declined during the same period. People are not e-mailing packages, last time I looked. MYTH #5: Only Third Class Mail receives discounts. Roughly half of all First Class Mail is from Private Mailers who receive an average discount of 7 cents per piece. MYTH #6: Outsourcing works. Well, not when the USPS does it. Our little experiment with Emery cost us in excess of $300 million. THE BIG LIE: COLA keeps employees even with inflation; any raises are gravy. The COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index, which excludes food and energy costs, and is only a percentage of that. Measured against inflation, Postal Workers' salaries, nationally, have remained flat since 1971. The COLA is necessary, but it is the raises (averaging just over 1% per year) that keep Postal Workers even with inflation. With no "area COLA," those of us in New Jersey have been falling behind. All of the above information is either from testimony before the President's Commission or from the USPS web site. As Fox Muldur used to say, the TRUTH is out there.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION REALLY MEANS WHEN THEY SAY... by Martin Johns In the past few years, as a Union representative, I have started to learn the art of parsing (translating) legalese. I can save everyone a lot of time, here, and simply tell you that, when the President's Commission on the USPS made their recommendations on LABOR on July 23, 2003, all they said was, "Screw the workers, screw the public, more money for management." Don't believe me? Read The Commission's Final Recommendations for yourself. Sadly, the implications are even greater than what we see on the surface. If enacted by Congress, I believe we will have reached the nadir of civilization. How else can you characterize the taking of benefits from the retired and the military just so we can add one more indecently wealthy CEO to the world (or two, or...)? If America chooses to steal from the poor and give to the rich, we best be looking over our shoulders; the Biblical Apocalypse is upon us. If one studies the tale of "Sodom and Gomorrah," those cities were destroyed because of their treatment of those less fortunate; not, as popular culture has it, for reasons of sexual deviancy. The "haves" in today's America are offended that the "have nots" have (in their eyes) too much. There was not a single "have not" on the Commission. What did you think it was all about? Point by point, here is my translation of the Commission's recommendations on the workforce. *****
|
|
When I began my Union journey, I
told anyone who would listen that I would never have chosen that path for
myself…that God had put me on that path and I was just sticking it out to find
out why.