I just found out that Crystal Lee Sutton, the inspiration for the movie Norma Rae, died on September 14. Below is a cut & paste of the full article from Crooks & Liars. I've seen that movie I don't know how many times. I wish you peace, sister. Thank you.

'Norma Rae' Dead at 68 After Struggle With Her Insurance Company to Get Chemo

It's the death of an American icon, a working-class woman who stood up for her rights and unionized her workplace. And wouldn't you know it? She fought the mills, but she couldn't make her insurance company do the decent thing until it was too late:

The woman whose life inspired the 1979 film Norma Rae has died of cancer after struggling with her health insurance company, which had delayed her treatment.

Crystal Lee Sutton was 68. She had struggled for several years with meningioma, a form of brain cancer.

She became a hero to the labor movement in the 1970s, when she took on her employer, a North Carolina textile plant, and unionized the factory floor. Her story became famous nationwide in 1975 after New York Times reporter Hank Leiferman wrote Crystal Lee: A Woman of Inheritance.

In 1979, her story was turned into the movie Norma Rae, a thinly-veiled fictional adaptation of Sutton’s struggle to unionize the J.P. Stevens plant in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Sally Field won an Oscar for her portrayal of the character inspired by Sutton.

As Daily Kos blogger hissyspit points out, last year Sutton gave an interview to the press where she described a struggle with her health insurer over treatment. The Times-News in Burlington, North Carolina, wrote in 2008:

[Sutton] went two months without possible life-saving medications because her insurance wouldn’t cover it, another example of abusing the working poor, she said.

“How in the world can it take so long to find out (whether they would cover the medicine or not) when it could be a matter of life or death,” she said. “It is almost like, in a way, committing murder.”

She eventually received the medication, but the cancer is taking a toll on her strong will and solid frame.

In 2008, the North Carolina branch of the AFL-CIO urged supporters to donate money to Sutton’s medical fund. On its Web site, the union had stated that “after initially being denied coverage by her insurance company for life saving treatment, Sutton is now on drug and chemo therapies and has undergone two surgeries.”

In its obituary the Greensboro News-Record describes her now-legendary struggle to unionize the J.P. Stevens plant:

In 1973, a 33-year-old Sutton was working at the J.P. Stevens plant in Roanoke Rapids, where she was making $2.65 an hour folding towels. The poor working conditions she and her fellow employees endured compelled her to join forces with Eli Zivkovich, a mill worker turned union organizer, and attempt to unionize the plant employees.

Sutton eventually lost her job, but the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU) won the right to represent the workers at the plant and Sutton briefly became an organizer for the union.

In 1977, she was awarded back wages and her job was reinstated by court order, although she chose to return to work for just two days.

Two articles on the Employee Free Choice Act, sorta. The first one is about rights at work which is related to EFCA. The second is about a reform piece that should be in EFCA but isn't. Both are good pieces.


"Can My Employer Do That To Me?"
Find Out If You're Being Treated Fairly
By Kari Lydersen
AlterNet
Posted March 13, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/131152/%22can_my_employer_do_that_to_me%22_find_out_if_you%27re_being_treated_fairly/?page=entire

[Alternet moderator: find the website refered to here at:] http://www.canmybossdothat.com/

Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts. A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers help.

"Can my boss do that?"

It's surely a common refrain nationwide, especially in the current desperate economic climate. Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts, often filled with deceptive terms such as "right to work", which actually has a lot more to do with keeping unions down than anyone's right to work.

With unionization at record lows nationwide and lawyers who offer pro bono advice stretched to their limits, it is hard for workers of any shade of collar to know where to turn for help answering the question "Can my boss do that?" A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers a good start.

The user-friendly site covers a comprehensive range of the most common workplace related legal terms and situations, providing explanations and answers in clear and concise terminology that breaks down nuances without overwhelming the already-stressed out worker with too much text or extra detail.

The home page features a section tailored to workers facing job loss, with information on severance pay, health insurance including the new stimulus COBRA provision and how to "not get scammed" in looking for a new job. There is a warning that the viewing or emailing of the site may be tracked on work computers...and the strategic disclaimer apparently meant for employers'
eyes: "Ethical employers should not have to face competitors who violate laws and basic decency. This site seeks to have all work honor justice and respect the laborer and employer."

In some cases the answers leave you wanting more context, such as the description of Right-to-Work:
"Right-to-Work laws have nothing to do with whether you can be fired. It's a way to take power away and give workers the Right-to-Work for less."

But the entry on "Fighting unfair treatment" is more typical of the site and comprehensive:

"Even if it's not illegal, you can try to fight unfair treatment. Some companies have internal grievance procedures, (although it may not be impartial). If you have union protection, you have many rights to fair discipline and appeal.

Non-union workers do not have the right to have a co- worker present when they are questioned. You don't have the same job protections as a union member, since you can still be fired with no good reason. Even though it's not a right, you can ask to have a co-worker with you. A witness and advisor can help."

The sections covering worker health and safety and workers' comp appear extremely useful, giving detailed checklists of what one needs to successfully file for workers' compensation and what to do if you are hurt at work.

The site also breaks down the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the 1935 law protecting a workers' right to collective organizing. It lays out the separate laws for railway and airline workers limiting their ability to strike, and outlines which industries are not covered by the NLRA. (It is widely known that farm workers and domestic workers aren't covered, but you might be surprised to learn that neither are employees of religious organizations or of horse and dog racing
tracks.)

There are helpful downloads and links throughout the site, including copies of actual laws, contact information for government agencies and a directory of National Labor Relations Board offices. The section on unions explains both workers' rights to organize a union and their rights within a union. If those rights aren't being respected, the site tells you how to change unions or get rid of a union, with information tailored by state.

Interfaith Worker Justice (previously known as the National Interfaith Committee on Worker Justice) has a long history of working in partnership with unions and with non-union workers in a variety of community-based and democratic campaigns, including creative actions and civil disobedience. Their staff and affiliated faith- based leaders and "workers centers" nationwide probably have first hand experience with nearly every subject covered on the website. They are known for being energetic and effective supporters of union campaigns, while also being quick to help workers fight for their rights within a union or opposing an undemocratic or sluggish union.

For example the section on a union's fair duty of representation reads:

"Representatives of the union (elected leaders, staff, and shop stewards) can't discriminate against a worker because of union politics (for example, because a worker spoke out against something the union was doing or supported another candidate in a union election). The union cannot play favorites. They must represent every worker who is covered by the contract -- members and non-members. The union cannot make a non-member join in order to represent her grievance or discipline case.
Unions have to give a reasonable level of representation, but the standard is pretty low."

This winter Interfaith Worker Justice was deeply involved in the successful struggle of workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, where more than 200 workers occupied the factory after it was closed suddenly and they were not given federally mandated notice or severance pay. In the face of the occupation and surrounding public and political pressure, two major banks extended loans to cover the money due workers, and a California-based manufacturer of green building components ended up buying the factory and promising to hire workers back. Republic Windows workers were represented by the UE union, whose organizers and supporters were on top of the complicated legal issues involved. But since their high profile victory, the Republic Workers have heard from countless other workers nationwide whose legal rights were violated, and who didn't know it at the time or didn't know where to turn.
This website should be a valuable aid for workers across the country and across the spectrum of industries and positions.

Kari Lydersen, a regular contributor to AlterNet, also writes for the Washington Post and is an instructor for the Urban Youth International Journalism Program in Chicago.

----------------------

Jonathan Cutler

'Free Choice' Must Mean Switching Unions, Too
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-cutler-union-free-choice.artmar15,0,7563380.story

Hartford Courant

March 15, 2009

More than 50 percent of employees represented by SEIU at Kaiser-Permanente have signed petition cards requesting the switch to the competitor union. But SEIU enthusiasm for petition cards seems not to apply in this instance. The SEIU says it will not accept a check of petition cards as evidence of popular support for the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

Indeed, it has gone further by asking that the NLRB deny the Kaiser employees' request for a secret ballot challenge election.

Incumbent unions are not the only ones who seem to fear the whole business of union competition — raiding, poaching, challenge elections, etc. Many so-called "pro-labor" academics recoil at the idea of union rivalry. Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor law at the University of California, Irvine, recently warned that employers would probably try to capitalize on the schism.

"Historically, fights within unions have been used by employers to their advantage," Fisk said. "It's the classic divide and conquer strategy."

But that old dog won't bark. In March 2008, one of the nation's most prominent law firms specializing in helping employers manage labor trouble distributed a memo analyzing the growing challenge to the SEIU. The memo warned that "this struggle" would "almost certainly" result in "an energized and aggressive" union movement "in California and elsewhere." The "debate" will force all contenders to prove that they "can bargain strong contracts and organize new members effectively." "Employers are advised," the memo concluded, to prepare for "more aggressive organizing and collective bargaining campaigns." In other words, prepare for a strong labor movement.

But that strong labor movement depends on real employee free choice. In the last instance, union revitalization does not await the end of the secret ballot in union elections but the end of the contract-bar doctrine and the freedom to replace ineffectual unions with nimble, hungry challengers.

•Jonathan Cutler is associate professor of sociology at Wesleyan University. He is the author of "Labor's Time: Shorter Hours, the UAW, and the Struggle for American Unionism."

This makes me happy to be entering this field professionally. Find out more at the Labor and Working Class History Association. This post originally found on portside.org.

Historians in Support of the Employee Free Choice Act

By Michael Honey, Fred and Dorothy Haley Professor of Humanities, President, Labor and Working-Class History Association University of Washington, Tacoma http://faculty.washington.edu/mhoney/

One hundred historians have declared their support for the Employee Free Choice Act, introduced into Congress on March 10 by Senator Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller. The legislation would make it easier for workers to organize unions and harder for employers to evade them. Workers could obtain a union when fifty percent sign cards authorizing a union. The law would also force employers to respond quickly and bargain in good faith or face increased fines and mandatory, binding arbitration by the National Labor Relations Board.

Why are faculty members, who are so notoriously un-organized, speaking on behalf of unions? There are many reasons, but on one level the reason is simple:

democracy depends upon it, and our economy needs it.

The last great depression occurred when unions declined to almost nothing in the 1920s. Republican government cut taxes on the rich and removed many of the regulations of the Progressive era, which in turn allowed bankers and corporations to make sky-high profits. The housing and stock market boomed, and the rich got richer. That led to the crash of 1929.

Because labor was not organized, it had almost no restraining influence on government, leading to a vast divide between the rich and the working class. Sound familiar?

In 1935, the Wagner Act made it easier for workers to organize, establishing the right to freedom of association and speech on the job without employer intimidation or interference. The rise of unions paved the way to the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and many of the government safety nets we rely upon today.

Because unions gained in strength, workers increased their wages and their buying power. When the economy came out of its stupor during the rapid industrialization of World War II, unions became widespread. The result was the rise of the largest middle class in world history.

This history favors two arguments about the need for labor law reform today. Without unions, government will not reflect the needs of the great majority of people who work for a living. Not only will democracy suffer, but wages will stagnate, people cannot afford to buy what they produce, and our economy will suffer.

Those who have jobs need to be able to advocate for themselves. Employers will not voluntarily raise wages, and government will not do very much to make that happen either. Only workers themselves can do that, but to do it, they need to be able to harness their numbers in an organized way.

Employers will say EFCA takes away the workers right to a secret ballot. It isn't true. If thirty percent or people in a work place petition for it, they can demand a secret ballot election. The trouble is, employer strategies since the 1980s have turned elections into a nightmare of intimidation, delays, and poor results for workers.

EFCA allows that if fifty percent petition for a union, it will take effect immediately. The choice of methods belongs to workers, not to the employers, who seem perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Let's face

it: Labor laws are written to protect workers.

History shows that we are in a time where worker rights need increased protection. Unions are clearly not the answer to every problem. But for capitalism to function in a democratic manner, we need them.

For a list of signers to the historians' petition, and for more information on the Employee Free Choice Act, see the web site (http://LAWCHA.org/tls.php).

******

Michael Honey is Haley Professor of Humanities at the University of Washington Tacoma, and author of "Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King's Last Campaign."

David Brody University of California-Davis

Alice Kessler-Harris Columbia University

Michael Honey University of Washington, Tacoma

Joseph Hower Georgetown University

Bethany Moreton University of Georgia

Brian Greenburg Monmouth University

Eileen Boris University of California, Santa Barbara

James J. Lorence University of Wisconsin—Marathon County

Alison Jaggar University of Colorado, Boulder

(Philosophy)

Michael C. Pierce University of Arkansas

Charles A. Zappia San Diego Mesa College

Susan Hirsch Loyola University, Chicago

Thomas Dublin SUNY Binghamton

Kevin Boyle Ohio State University

Bruce Cohen Worcester State College

Eric Fure-Slocum St. Olaf College

John S. Olszowka Mercyhurst College

Leon Fink University of Illinois, Chicago

Harvey Schwartz San Francisco State University

David Montgomery Yale University

Peter Cole Western Illinois University

Jacquelyn Dowd Hall University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Susan Levine University of Illinois, Chicago

John L. Revitte Michigan State University

Elliott Gorn Brown University

Harvey Kaye University of Wisconsin, Green Bay

Deborah Cohen University of Missouri, St. Louis

Nancy F. Gabin Purdue University

Robert Reutenauer Middlesex Community College

Charles Williams University of Washington, Tacoma

Peter Rachleff Macalester College

Michael Denning Yale University

Ellen Schrecker Yeshiva University

George Hopkins College of Charleston

Joshua B. Freeman City University of New York

Ina Clausen University of California

Jacob Remes Duke University

Joseph Abel Rice University

Matthew Basso University of Utah

Daniel A. Graff University of Notre Dame

Daniel Clark Oakland University (Michigan)

Michael Kazin Georgetown University

Roberta Gold Fordham University

John Enyeart Bucknell University

Alan Derickson Pennsylvania State University

Linda K. Kerber University of Iowa

Jennifer Klein Yale University

Laurie Mercier Washington State University – Vancouver

Fraser Ottanelli University of South Florida

John P. Lloyd Cal Poly Pomona

Leslie S. Rowland University of Maryland, College Park

Scott Saul University of California, Berkeley

Andrew H. Lee New York University, Bobst Library

James N. Gregory University of Washington

Landon Storrs University of Houston

Theodore Steinberg Case Western Reserve University

David Zonderman North Carolina State University

Rachel Batch Widener University

Alexander Keyssar Harvard University

José A. Soler University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Liesl Orenic Dominican University (IL)

Gordon K. Mantler Duke University

Lizabeth Cohen Harvard University

Devra Weber University of California, Riverside

Randi Storch State University of New York, Cortland

Shannan W. Clark Montclair State University

Elizabeth Shermer University of California, Santa Barbara

Patricia Cooper University of Kentucky

Stanford Jacoby University of California, Los Angeles

Steven Attewell University of California, Santa Barbara

Dolores Janiewski Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)

Jennifer Luff University of California, Irvine

Dana Frank University of California, Santa Cruz

Elizabeth Lamoree University of California, Santa Barbara

Cassandra Engeman University of California, Santa Barbara

Tobias Higbie University of California, Los Angeles

Mary O. Furner University of California, Santa Barbara

Lisa Phillips Indiana State Universsity

Jack Epstein Ohio University

Matthew Bewig University of Florida

Michael Robert Bussel University of Oregon

Roxanne Newton Mitchell Community College (NC)

Kenneth Fones-Wolf West Virginia University

Otto Olsen Northern Illinois University

Melvyn Dubofsky State University of New York, Binghamton

Robert Schaffer Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

Michelle Haberland Georgia Southern University

Linda Gordon New York University

Moon-Ho Jung University of Washington

Jennifer E. Brooks Auburn University

Seth Wigderson University of Maine at Augusta

Sean Burns University of California, Santa Cruz

Darryl Holter University of Southern California

Beth English Princeton University

Eric Foner, Columbia University

Robert Zieger, University of Florida

Mai Ngai, Columbia University

Charles Bergquist, University of Washington

Nelson Lichtenstein, University of California Santa Barbara

Kimberly Phillips, William and Mary

Nikhil Pal Singh, University of Washington

Michelle Nacy, University of Washington Tacoma

Grace Palladino, University of Maryland

Today, March 10, 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced into Congress. The ability to join a union could actually get a little fairer if this passes. The EFCA makes it possible to have a legally recognized union through card check. Card check is a modern version of what used to happen back when the National Labor Rights Act was first introduced. If a majority of workers sign a card saying they want a union, there's a union. Right now, 33% of workers have to sign a card saying they want an election. Then the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) runs an election. Of course, while the workers are deciding if they want a card or not they are harrassed by management. If there is a call for an election, the boss then delays it by going through an endless hearing process that decides who gets to vote and who doesn't. During this delay the workers are subjected to a fierce anti-union campaign, sometimes run by professional human rights violators. Here's how one of these defenders of authoritarianism advertises:

Isn't nice to know that in a free country you can make a good living using "aggressive, practical and tacticall sound" approaches to prevent people from exercises their constitutional right of freedom of association?

The pro-poverty coalition of the Chamber of Commerce, American Manufacturing Association, etc. are blathering on about the end of the world. Rachel Maddow nails the response pretty well. See the ad in the Washington Post for a bit more info.

Below is a message directly from Jobs with Justice about the victory in Chicago at the Republic plant. For direct information go to the union's (United Electrical workers or UE) website here.

VICTORY AT REPUBLIC WINDOWS AND DOORS! Workers Vote to Get Pay; Occupation Ends! After 6 days occupying the plant, workers at Republic Window and Doors in Chicago voted to accept a settlement late last night. The settlement totals $1.75million. It will provide the workers with: Eight weeks of pay they are owed under the federal WARN Act; Two months of continued health coverage, and; Pay for all accrued and unused vacation. JPMorgan Chase will provide $400,000 of the settlement, with the balance coming from Bank of America. Although the money will be provided as a loan to Republic Windows and Doors, it will go directly into a third-party fund whose sole purpose is to pay the workers what is owed them. In addition, the UE has started the "Window of Opportunity Fund" dedicated to re-opening the plant. As the Local 1110 leaders characterized the settlement, "We fought to make them pay what they owe us, and we won." Read more about the settlement here. We want to extend a big THANK YOU to all of you who participated in this campaign. The tremendous support and solidarity from the thousands of people like you around the country - and the world - who took the time to send messages to Bank of America and who rallied at banks across the country was crucial in winning this victory. This is truly an historic victory for workers in the United States. But this struggle is just the beginning! As the economic crisis deepens we need to launch a working class fight back. Rallies for a "People's Bailout" will continue today and throughout the rest of the week. Click here to find an action near you (updated daily). You can also take action online: Tell Congress: We Demand a People's Bailout Save Autoworker Jobs VOTE NOW for Grinch of the Year Thanks again for all that you do! You can see photos, video, and press clips from the Week of Action here.

300 factory workers in Chicago have seized their factory after an announcement it would close. The workers are members of the United Electrical (UE) workers union, a militant independent union. You can check out the full story at the Chi Town Daily News. You can also follow the story along at the UE website.

This article is from Monthly Review, an excellent site you should check out ASAP. Early's piece is well written, comprehensive, and pulls no punches. Great work.

Puerto Rico's Teachers Show the Way: SEIU Learns the Meaning of "No"
by Steve Early
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/early241008.html

When last seen on the picket-line, Puerto Rican teachers were fighting their way through police barricades to appeal to fellow workers from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), at its lavishly funded convention in San Juan in June. (See "San Juan Showdown," CounterPunch, June 3, 2008.)

The message of the Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR) was simple: please stop SEIU President Andy Stern from colluding with the indicted governor of the island to replace FMPR with a "company union."

At SEIU's convention, only a handful of delegates dared to challenge Stern on this issue. When eight rank-and-file members from California tried to distribute a leaflet asking why the "top leadership has sided against the teachers of Puerto Rico in a gross case of 'colonial' unionism,'" SEIU staffers threatened several of them with reprisals. "They told us that this is a betrayal and that we could be suspended from the union if we continued handing out the fliers," delegate Brian Cruz, from Local 1021 in San Francisco, explained to the San Juan Star.

Most of the 3,000 delegates and guests simply cheered when Stern and SEIU vice-president Dennis Rivera, a native of Puerto Rico, introduced their good friend, Anibal Acevedo Vila, the Popular Democratic Party governor. Acevedo Vila is still awaiting trial on federal corruption charges and it was his administration that precipitated a ten-day, island-wide public school strike led by the FMPR last winter. As the Star reported June 3, SEIU used its convention and the governor's appearance to promote a rival organization, "which is hoping to become the new union representative for an estimated 42,000 public school teachers."

In the view of SEIU and Acevedo Vila, teachers needed a new SEIU-affiliated union because FMPR no longer had legal recognition after its walk-out over wages, classroom size, and the threat of privatization. This month, however, the teachers themselves disagreed that it was time for a change. By a margin of 18,123 to 14, 675, they voted on Thursday (10/23) against joining the SEIU-backed SPM (Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Maestros), which is closely aligned with another SEIU affiliate, the Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico, an organization of school principals and administrators.

The "Vote No" campaign was orchestrated by the FMPR which, as further punishment for its "illegal" strike, was denied a spot on the ballot. (FMPR was even barred from having observers at teacher polling places.) Prior to the start of the election, FMPR presented evidence to the labor relations commission showing that it still had voluntary financial support from 12,000 members (who have continued to pay union dues even though automatic deductions from all teachers' paychecks were discontinued when FMPR was "decertified"). Although SEIU favors "employee free choice" on the mainland and assured critics here there would be a multiple-choice ballot, Stern and his local allies limited Puerto Rican teachers to just one union option, which they then rejected.

The defeated SPM has almost no dues payers so SEIU had to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into this losing effort, much of it spent on advertising. As one FMPR supporter reported, SEIU had "paid staff at each school giving out free t-shirts and coolers and the media and the government were clearly in its favor but still they couldn't impose their union on us." FMPR activist Edgardo Alvelo, who teaches at a vocational school in Rio Piedras, estimates that his union spent only "$50,000 on the whole campaign." According to Alvelo, "that money was very hard to obtain, but it was enough to win. It was our people in the schools that did the job. Today, we are celebrating and tomorrow our struggle will continue in all our schools."

The representation vote turnout was extremely high. Of the 36,000 teachers eligible to participate due to their permanent status, 33,818 actually voted, with a thousand of those ballots being challenged or voided. FMPR now faces the task of continuing to function as what's called a "bona fide organization," under P.R. labor law. While still deprived of the full collective bargaining rights it had before the strike, FMPR retains a strong shop steward structure, the ability to represent members, and mobilize around educational policy issues and day-to-day job concerns.

FMPR supporters in New York, California, and elsewhere aided the successful "Vote No" campaign by raising money to help keep this militant independent union afloat. (For more information, see <mysite.verizon.net/vze2kxcd/fmprsupportcommitteenewyork/> or the FMPR's own website <fmprlucha.org>.) On October 14, some protested outside the Manhattan headquarters of United Healthcare Workers-East (the former SEIU/District 1199 long headed by Rivera), where they denounced Stern's raid on FMPR as an insult to New York hospital workers "proud history of fighting for justice and dignity."

During an August visit to the mountain community of Utuado, one FMPR Support Committee member, Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez, brought money that was collected for FMPR members disciplined for their union activity. A registered nurse in NYC, Sheridan-Gonzalez reports that:

The union, in collaboration with students and parents, had developed a progressive, inclusive curriculum that was extraordinarily successful. This collaborative structure was unilaterally dismantled by the government/school authority in 2007 and 17 teachers were suspended when they fought back. They stood firm even without an income and the class of 2008 in Utuado even dedicated their graduation speeches to these teachers. Their energy and commitment was inspiring and reminiscent of the spirit of U.S. unions in the 1930s and Puerto Rican labor in years past.

That same feisty spirit was on display in this month's island-wide union vote, which gave SEIU an expensive lesson in the meaning of "No."

---

Steve Early is a Boston-based labor journalist and the author of a forthcoming book for Monthly Review Press called Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home. He can be reached at <Lsupport@aol.com>.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a bill that will go some ways to make getting a union a more fair process. Right now the boss can intimidate at will while dragging out the election process for months. Even after the election the boss can delay the process for years sometimes. EFCA goes back to the spirit of the Wagner Act. Jobs with Justice has this video. You can check out the campaign at www.freechoiceact.org.

The Progressive States Network sends out weekly reports on issues in state legislatures and state politics. They come from a, well, a progressive angle. Below is there report on Supreme Court decisions this last term. You can see the full report on their site.

Supreme Court and the States: Business Wins, Voting Rights Lose, and a Mixed Bag on Criminal Justice

As the Supreme Court marches to the Right, corporate interests continue to thrive at the expense of state regulatory powers. “This has been a very successful year for the business community,” said Miguel Estrada, a Washington appellate lawyer who represents many key corporate interests before courts in Washington, D.C." This session at the U.S. Supreme Court, as this Dispatch will highlight, had an almost uniform tilt towards business versus state regulatory authority. In other areas like election law, the tilt was against poor voters who faced restrictions on their right to vote, though the term was a more mixed bag on criminal justice and other issues before the Court.

More Resources

Tell a Friend About This

Business Interests Win Big Against State Regulation

In almost every Supreme Court decision decided this term, state regulation lost out against business claims of federal preemption of state powers.
Consumers Lose in Medical Device Liability Case: As we highlighted in February, Riegel v. Medtronic is potentially one of the most dangerous decisions undercutting state consumer protection laws in decades. Essentially, the court declared that once the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a medical device, however careless or politicized the decision, the companies are then immune to lawsuits under state consumer protection laws authorized by the 1976 Medical Device Amendments. What made this decision especially appalling is that sponsors of that federal law, such as Sen. Edward Kennedy, point out that no such preemption of state law was ever intended, so the Supreme Court created this attack on state powers completely on its own authority. Legislation to reverse this decision has already been introduced into Congress.

Making the decision especially dangerous is its likely expansion to consumer suits over defective prescription drugs. A decision on that exact issue, Warner-Lambert v. Kent, deadlocked 4-4 only because Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because of substantial stock holdings in the drug company involved in the suit. There is the likelihood, though, of Roberts be a deciding vote next term in a similar case about state consumer laws.

Court Compels States to Fund Union Busting by Government Contractors: In one of the most anti-labor decisions in decades, and one of the most bizarre ones, the Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown struck down a California law that prevented government contractors from diverting money meant for health care or other public services to paying union-busting lawyers. Many federal laws, including Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act, prohibit use of federal money for anti-union activities, so it is especially odd that states are helpless to stop public money from being misused for anti-union purposes when the federal government reserves the right to prevent such misuse of its own funds. Despite claims that federal labor law preempts the California law, as Justice Breyer wrote in dissent, legislatures have "broad authority to decide how to spend the People's money." If Californians do not want their tax money used to block unionization, "why should they be conscripted into paying?"
Beyond these two blockbuster decisions, corporate interests won in a series of other cases:

• States Can't Stop Mail Order Cigarette Sales to Minors: In Rowe v. NH Motor Transport Association, the Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts a Maine statute requiring tobacco shippers to use delivery companies that verify the age of the customer.
• Arbitration Clauses Void Right to State Administrative Appeals: In its ongoing gutting of state labor laws, the Court declared in Preston v. Ferrer that a California state law requiring an administrative hearing in talent agency disputes was overridden by the Federal Arbitration Act if an arbitration clause had been signed.
• Corporations Win Tax Rulings Against States: In both CSX v. GA Board of Equalization and Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Department of Revenue, state methodologies for taxing the corporation plaintiffs were struck down as preempted by federal law or constitutional rules, in each case likely handing the plaintiff companies a large tax decrease.
  
• Punitive Damages Owed by Corporations Slashed: While focusing on federal maritime law in its details, numerous legal experts expect the Court's Exxon v. Baker decision - which slashed punitive damages owed to the Alaskan victims of Exxon's Valdez oil spill to no more than actual damages - will spill over into state courts, the primary venue for punitive damages against companies.
  

The one major corporate case involving state regulation that had even a mixed result was Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1, which made a strongly pro-corporate legal argument that predatory utility contracts will generally be upheld no matter how unreasonable the rates for consumers, but that in the narrow case of unlawful manipulation of the power market, there might be cause for overturning the power contract.

Tell a Friend About This

Election Law Decisions: Burdening Voting Rights, Upholding Voting Systems and Opposing Campaign Finance Fairness

If the Court was eager to override state laws for the benefit of corporate interests, it bent over backwards in deference to state law when the issue was Indiana's photo ID law gutting the rights of our nation's poorest voters in Crawford v. Marion City Election Board. As we detailed when the decision came down in May, the Court ignored clear evidence that a large majority of voters without ID who came to the polls would be prevented from having their votes counted-- and that the financial and time costs of obtaining a photo ID for many of them would be prohibitive, far more than poll taxes previously struck down as unconstitutional, as Justice Breyer noted in dissent.

Upholding Primary Systems: In two other decisions, the Court deferred to unusual state primary systems:

• In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party et al., the Court upheld Washington's new ballot system that allows candidates from all parties to compete in a single primary together, with the top two vote-getters going on to a runoff. The court ignored concerns that it violated the parties' associational rights that candidates could identify themselves with a party on the ballot and even advance to the runoff, despite the possibility of that candidate not being the choice of voting members of that party.
• In NY Board of Elections v. Lopez Torre, the Court approved New York state's system of nominating lower court judges at party conventions, rather than through direct elections.

Implications of Davis for State Public Financing Laws? While not directly effecting a state law, the majority in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the federal "Millionaire's Amendment" which allowed candidates facing self-funding candidates exceeding a certain level of spending to receiving larger campaign contributions to level the playing field. Given clear legal differences, state public financing laws in states like Arizona which increase state funding for candidates facing high-spending opponents should survive challenge, but the animosity by the Court majority to the goal of levelling the electoral playing field between those with and without wealth in our democracy is a general threat to such state campaign finance laws.

Tell a Friend About This

A Mixed Term on Criminal Justice Issues

In terms of both justice and protection of state authority on criminal justice issues, the term was an extremely mixed bag.

• In Baze v. Rees, the Court upheld Kentucky's use of lethal injection for its death penalty.
• In Danforth v. Minnesota, the Court upheld Minnesota's decision to extend stronger retroactive relief for violations of Federal Constitutional rights than even federal courts might grant themselves, since "[f]ederal law sets certain minimal requirements that states must meet but may exceed in providing appropriate relief."
• In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court struck down Louisiana's law imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child as violating the Eighth Amendment.
• In Snyder v. Louisiana, the Court tightened scrutiny of state courts that allow government prosecutors to use preemptory strikes against black jurors in a discriminatory manner.
• In Indiana v. Edwards, the Court said that states may require defendants found competent enough to stand trial, but whose mental illnesses may prevent them from representing themselves, to be represented by counsel.
• In Medellin v. Texas, the Court ruled that the President does not have the authority to order a state to follow a World Court decision finding a state had violating an international treaty, in this case Texas denying an immigrant defendant access to his embassy council as required under a treaty signed by the United States. The court essentially made international law and U.S. treaties irrelevant for state governments unless Congress passes a separate law implementing them.
  

Implications of Heller for State Gun Laws: While the District of Columbia v. Heller decision creating a personal right to own a gun under the Second Amendment could have major implications for striking down state and local gun control laws, it is worth noting that the decision, written by Justice Scalia, stated that many existing gun law restrictions are still valid, including those limiting the kinds of weapons people may own, limiting ownership by felons and the mentally ill, limiting possession in schools and government buildings, and regulations on commercial sales. And it's not even clear, since this case was about a District of Columbia law and thus implicates only 2nd Amendment rights versus federal authority, that state gun laws will be restricted at all under the doctrine, a point Justice Scalia made in a footnote where he noted that a number of past Supreme Court cases had "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government."

Tell a Friend About This

Other Miscellaneous Cases Upholding State Powers

A few other decisions had important implications for state authority:

• State leaders breathed a sigh of relief when the Court in Department of Revenue of KY v. Davis upheld the right of states to offer tax free gains under state law as an incentive for investments in municipal bond funding state and locally-authorized projects without running afoul of the federal Commerce Clause.
• In Kentucky Retirement System v. EEOC, the Court ruled that Kentucky’s pension system, which treats more generously some retired workers who became disabled before rather than after retirement agent, does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Court's Hostility to Public Employee Rights: Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture was a notable case in emphasizing the double standard of the Court in regards to public employees' constitutional rights. Having in past cases allowed property owners and others effected by state government actions to bring equal protection claims, under the doctrine of a "class-of-one," against arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious treatment, the Court in Engquist denied state employees the right to bring the same kind of constitutional claims when facing similar treatment. In dissent, Justice Stevens noted that this case was following the recent trend of the Court systematically excluding public employees from First Amendment and civil rights protections.

May 1st is May Day. If you're pagan, have fun dancing around a pole but that's not what I'm talking about. This is an international workers' holiday. Take the day off and hoist a pint for the people who labor put the food on the table. Yes, that includes you (unless you're a capitalist). Here are some of my favorite labor links:

Labor Start- International labor news.
Labor Notes - US labor news
IWW - Industrial Workers of the World. A fighting union still fighting.
Coalition of Immokalee Workers -Fighting for farmworkers in Florida

This is just weird. A Burger King executive using his daughter's email to take pot shots at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Seems a little juvenile, doesn't it? But it doesn't look like BK is out to make sense. Here's a New York Times piece from March 2007 about how BK was willing to pay more for cage-free eggs and pork. Yes, it seems that BK thinks pigs and chickens should be free but farmworkers can go to Hell. You would think a guy with the same name as a cute Sesame Street character would know better.

You can see Grover in this picture. He's the guy in blue.


Burger King Exec Uses Daughter's Online ID To Chide Immokalee Coalition

By Amy Bennett Williams
News-Press.com (Florida)
April 28, 2008
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/BUSINESS/804280351/1075

As the Coalition of Immokalee Workers prepares to deliver more than 60,000 petitions to Burger King headquarters in Miami today, the daughter of Burger King's vice-president Stephen Grover confirmed her father is responsible for online postings vilifying the coalition.

The Immokalee-based group is asking Burger King to improve tomato harvesters' working conditions and pay a penny more a pound for tomatoes, which could add about $20 to a daily wage of $50, workers say.

McDonald's and Yum! Brands, the world's biggest fast- food chain and restaurant company, respectively, have agreed to the raise. Yum! signed on in 2005; McDonald's in 2007. So far, Burger King has refused, while publicly saying it wants to work with the coalition to improve labor conditions.

Yet often during the past year, when articles or videos about the coalition were posted on YouTube and various Internet news sites, someone using the online names
activist2008 or surfxaholic36 would attach comments coalition member Greg Asbed has called 'libelous.'

This one, from surfxaholic36, is representative: 'The CIW is an attack organization lining the leaders pockets . They make up issues and collect money from dupes that believe their story. To (sic) bad the people protesting don't have a clue regarding the facts. A bunch of fools!'

A father's posts

Although Shannon Grover also uses the name
surfxaholic36 - mostly on social networking sites - she said the anti-coalition posts are her father's alone.

'I don't really know much about the coalition and Burger

King stuff,' she said, reached by phone at the family's Miramar home Friday. 'That was my dad. My dad used to go online with that name and write about them.'

Asked if she'd ever written about the coalition online, she was adamant: 'No, that was my Dad. That was him.'

Steven Grover did not return calls to his home or office, nor did Burger King spokesman Keva Silversmith respond to calls and a request to speak to Burger King CEO John Chidsey.

'This is truly disturbing,' said coalition member Gerardo Reyes. 'It's one thing to imagine that there's some kind of anonymous Internet stalker out there obsessively tracking every story about the CIW, posting these vicious lies about us and calling us things like `the lowest form of life' and `blood suckers," Reyes said. 'I mean, we're a farmworker community fighting slavery and trying to get a fair wage for the work we do.'

The bigger question, Reyes said, is this: 'When you realize the person posting those things is actually Burger King's vice president in charge of the ethical operation of the company's supply chain, it really makes you wonder just how high up does this whole thing go? Does Burger King, as a company, approve of this sort of behavior? If not, we'd expect to see some changes now that this has come to light.'

`The low-road approach'

Last month, activist2008 sent an e-mail to The News- Press almost identical to many of the online postings signed 'Shawn Glass.' The e-mail's Internet address showed it came from Burger King's corporate headquarters in Miami. No one named Shawn Glass works there, according to the employee phone directory.

At the time, Silversmith denied the e-mail was official BK communication, although he didn't deny it came from the company.

'This is a non-corporate sanctioned opinion,' he told The News-Press. 'The strident tone does not reflect Burger King, who wants to cooperate and bring real change to Immokalee.'

Marc Rodrigues of the Student Farmworker Alliance, which works closely with the coalition, says he's not surprised by the latest revelation but frustrated an executive would 'stoop to this level and choose the low-road approach instead of trying to work for real change.'

It was Rodrigues who discovered earlier this year the alliance had been infiltrated by Cara Schaffer, who said she was a student at Broward Community College interested in organizing campus events in support of farmworkers.

In reality, Schaffer owns Diplomatic Tactical Services, a Hollywood, Fla.-based security and investigative firm that advertises its ability to place operatives in the ranks of target groups.

Her application for a private investigator's license was denied last year because she failed to prove she had experience or training. Florida's Division of Licensing told her, 'Your employment must be terminated immediately, or your employer may reassign you to duties that do not require licensure or registration.'

That didn't stop her from listening in on two alliance conference calls. Her company's Web site is no longer online.

Reluctance to cooperate

The coalition, one of the nation's most respected anti- slavery groups, also is asking Burger King to help 'eliminate slavery and human rights abuses from Florida's fields.'

At Senate hearings on farm conditions held by U.S. Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., earlier this month, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling 'Fast Food Nation,' praised Yum! and McDonald's for working with the coalition and urged Burger King to do the same.
'The admirable behavior of these two industry giants makes the behavior or Burger King . seem completely unjustifiable.'

Schlosser has argued it would take Burger King no more than $300,000 a year to pay the increase.

On its corporate Web site, Burger King, which has more than 11,300 restaurants in the United States and in 69 countries and U.S. territories, reports revenues of
$2.2 billion last year, up 9 percent from 2006. CEO Chidsey made $4.1 million last year, according to Forbes.com.

Given the company's profile and earnings, Grover's behavior is all the more interesting, said John Stauber, executive director of the nonprofit, non- partisan Center for Media and Democracy, based in Madison, Wis.

'I think this shows a deep arrogance that a person at such a high level in the corporation would be directly involved in that type of harassment,' Stauber said.
'This a huge black eye for the Burger King corporation.
It's the type of situation that lands companies in public relations textbooks on how not to engage the press, the public and your critics.'

(c) News-Press.com