Edwards, Hoffa Join Fla. University Strike

[cal04]

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Teamsters President James Hoffa and civil rights leaders marched with striking service workers and about 200 supporters Tuesday at the University of Miami. About a quarter of the 425 janitors and other contract workers employed by UNICCO Service Co. at the university have been on strike since early March. The workers want to organize as part of the Service Employees International Union and are demanding a pay hike. Officials agreed March 16 to raise the minimum wages of its contract employees, with subsidies from the university.

The strike over alleged unfair labor practices, health benefits and union representation has continued. "No Americans should be working full-time and still living in poverty," Edwards told the crowd. "This struggle is about earning a wage, about having health care benefits, about everyone in America, not just a few, having a shot at the American dream.

Edwards and university President Donna Shalala discussed the issue Tuesday, said Margot Winick, a university spokeswoman. Shalala, who was U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary under President Clinton, has said the school would not take a position on the unionization of striking janitors. But the university placed an ad Tuesday in The Miami Herald criticizing the union's organizing tactics, saying it is disrupting the school's academic programs.

The union and students want UNICCO to agree to a process called card check, granting union recognition if a majority of workers sign cards in favor of joining. That process tends to be easier for workers to form unions, compared with having a secret ballot. UNICCO spokeswoman Cristin Brown said the company is not unilaterally opposed to the card-check process but feels it doesn't represent the desire of the majority of the university workers. "We hope that the SEIU will hold an election," Brown said. She said the company has promised not to challenge the results.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_re_us/university_strike_3

[saltpoint]

1. Some heavy hitters down in Florida fighting the good fight.

I love it.

[Selatius]

2. It's going to be a tough fight. "Right to work" laws are a drag on unions

The reason is because non-unionized workers enjoy the same hard-won gains union members enjoy, so the reasoning becomes, "Why should I have to join a union and pay dues when I already get it for doing nothing for the union?" It's also fear of the boss that keeps participation down. Just look at Wal-Mart for an example.

If I had the power to change the law, I'd make it so you have to join a union to enjoy those same benefits, but if you choose not to join, then you shouldn't be fired or prevented from gaining employment in that particular workplace just because that workplace unionized.

[acmavm]

3. You know, maybe you didn't mean it this way, but sometimes the way

people phrase things it just makes people think to hell with you and whatever it is you promote.

You make it sound like the majority of the workers in this country are just a drag on union workers, and that we don't deserve a living wage since we don't carry the union card:

<snip>
"Right to work" laws are a drag on unions.

The reason is because non-unionized workers enjoy the same hard-won gains union members enjoy, so the reasoning becomes, "Why should I have to join a union and pay dues when I already get it for doing nothing for the union?"...
<snip>

I have always been a supporter of unions. But remarks like this...

We all don't have access to unions. Do you really believe that any and all favorable working conditions and perks should only go to the union members?

[Selatius]

4. If you don't bother fighting at all, you are a drag regardless...

if you mean the union harm or not. You may think things can be done in a better way. You may think people deserve better treatment in the face of greed-soaked employers, and you may be right, but if you do nothing, nothing changes.

It's a harsh truth, but it's true: Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

"Worker solidarity" is a lot more than a catch-phrase or a slogan. They are words forged in hardship and pain among the bodies of countless workers who died and were killed because of cruel workplace conditions and employer campaigns to kill and oppress union workers. It means blood, sweat, and tears, and it means a lot more than simply letting somebody else do the fighting for you, while you enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[acmavm]

5. That's true. But that's not what you said originally.

[Selatius]

6. To be fair, it's a combination of both

It's true that nothing changes if nobody is willing to fight. "Right to work" laws operate upon that fact by convincing more workers that it is not necessary to join a union in order to enjoy the same benefits of union members. That can be overcome if workers choose to do so, and in some cases, that's true, but the frank truth of the matter is that those laws impede unions through virtue of demobilizing far too many workers. It is a combination of both, not one or the other. I should've been more articulate from the beginning.

Changing the laws to eliminate the "free-rider" problem would go a long way towards encouraging more union activity. You get what you fight for. Conversely, you don't get what you don't fight for.

If you work in a particular workplace that chose to fight to unionize and you didn't choose to unionize with them, you shouldn't receive the same benefits as those who did all the work, but on the other hand, you shouldn't be denied employment in that workplace or be fired from that place for not choosing to join the union as a precondition of employment in that unionized shop.