tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79093153056057571332023-11-15T11:16:49.214-08:00HOLGUIN POSTWhere the workers' movement for progressive change matters every day.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-89890301471608269892016-01-25T10:31:00.000-08:002016-01-25T10:34:12.023-08:00The SCOTUS reversed and remanded an ERISA plan case involving tustee’s duty of prudencet. <b>The SCOTUS reversed and remanded an ERISA plan case involving the question of a trustee’s duty of prudence case to the Ninth Circuit.</b><br />
<br />
Amgen v. Steve Harris is a case that involved employees of an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”). The employer administered the plan. The employees sued alleging a breach in ERISA’s duty of prudence by the employer for failing to stop offering Amgen stock as a purchase option to plan members in 2007 when it had inside information that the stock was about to take a precipitous drop in value. <br />
<br />
In the District Court, the employer succeeded on a motion to dismiss that the employees appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit held that the employees had stated a claim sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. The case initially came before SCOTUS in 2014, in which session the Court also issued its opinion in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which spelled out the test for a motion to dismiss in an ERISA duty of prudence case involving a tradition ESOP:<br />
<br />
1)Has P alleged an alternative action D could have taken which would have actually resulted in less financial loss to members and which<br />
2)Is legal under securities law, and<br />
3)Would not have appeared to a reasonable fiduciary as more likely to harm the plan than to help it.<br />
<br />
In 2014, SCOTUS vacated and remanded the Amgen case to Ninth Circuit for a decision in keeping with Fifth Third Bancorp. The Ninth Circuit again found that the Employee/Members had stated a claim, and this cert. petition followed. <br />
<br />
In a per curiam decision, SCOTUS chastised the Ninth Circuit for “failing to properly evaluate the complaint.” SCOTUS then read the complaint and found that it failed to state a claim under the Fifth Third Bancorp standard because a prudent fiduciary could have plausibly believed that to cease offering Amgen stock would cause the stock price to drop based on the market’s assessment that the Employer/Fiduciaries, who have inside information, no longer value the stock. Since that could end up doing more harm to the plan than good, it was acceptable to continue offering the stock. <br />
<br />
As a result, SCOTUS reversed and remanded, leaving it to the district court’s discretion whether to permit the employees amend their complaint in order to plead a claim within the Fifth Third Bancorp standard. <br />
<br />
Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-16177403347656890942016-01-21T12:37:00.000-08:002016-01-21T12:37:26.777-08:00Just Cause Tests in Disciplinary Arbitrations<b>DISCLAIMER: This guideline is not intended to provide or replace any legal advice and if the reader requires such advice, please contact an attorney. <br />
</b><br />
<br />
<b>Union Arbitrations: Just Cause Tests in Discipline/Discharge Cases</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
Labor Union-employer collective bargaining agreements general have in their contracts provisions requiring the employers to have “just cause or “good cause” before the employers can discipline or discharge an employee. This Post is a brief guideline of the tests and principles relating to just cause based arbitrations. My hope is that it gives unon representatives tools to protect their union members from improper employer disciplinary action. If you such a warrior, I suggest you save this Post in your smartphones, Evernote applications, DropBox accounts or simply printout the guideline for future references. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Principle of Just Cause and Disciplinary Arbitrations</b> <br />
<br />
The hallmark of “just cause” is the essential fairness of the employer’s actions in implementing discipline against an employee. That is what arbitrators look for in deciding discipline and discharge cases. What follows is a series of questions or tests (sometimes referred to as the seven tests) that an arbitrator might look to in order to determine whether the Employer was fair (had just cause) in imposing the discipline in question. If the answer to any of these questions is “no” the arbitrator may find no just cause for the discipline in question.<br />
Keep in mind, the primary focus of the arbitrator is whether the misconduct actually occurred, so the failure of the Employer to be fair alone may not win the arbitration<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What is the Level of Burden of Proof on the Employer</b>?<br />
<br />
Under the just cause standard, the burden of proof is on the employer to justify its adverse action against the grievant. The amount of proof possibly required: <br />
"beyond reasonable doubt” <br />
“clear and convincing”<br />
“preponderance of the evidence”<br />
<br />
There is no clear rule, but the more serious the discipline at issue, the more convincing the employer’s case will need to be in order for the discipline to be sustained. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Was There an Investigation and was it a Fair and Objective Investigation? (Tests One and Two)</b> <br />
<br />
In evaluating whether there was just cause for discipline, an arbitrator will look at a number of aspects of the events that led up to discipline being imposed. <br />
Did the Employer do a prompt, fair, objective investigation of the alleged misconduct?<br />
During the investigation, did the employee have access to Union representation and an opportunity to tell his/her story? Fundamental principles of fairness require that an accused have a chance to defend himself—his “day in court” –before being found guilty of misconduct, not after. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Did the Employer Have Enough Proof? (Test Three)</b> <br />
<br />
How did the employer make the decision discipline was warranted? <br />
At the investigation, did the Employer obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged? The evidence must be substantial and not flimsy. The Employer should actively search out witnesses and evidence, not just passively take what participants or “volunteer” witnesses tell him/her. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Was a Reasonable Rule Involved in the Disciple? (Test Four)</b> <br />
<br />
What was the work rule involved? Is it a reasonable one? How sever was the infraction? Was it sufficient to justify the severity of the penalty? Please note abitrators are reluctant to uphold discipline in cases where the work rule at issue is not reasonably related to the safe and efficient operation of the enterprise. If an employee believes a rule or order is unreasonable, he/she must work now, grieve later unless the employee sincerely believes that to obey the rule/order would jeopardize his/her health/safety. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Did the Employer Give Notice of the Rule and Possible Penalty? (Test Five)</b><br />
<br />
Did the employee have notice of the work rule as well as the disciplinary consequences of misconduct?<br />
Generally, employees are entitled not only to adequate notice of the employer’s work rules, but also to notice of the potential disciplinary consequences of their misconduct. Notice can be oral or in writing but there should be actual oral or written communication of the rules/penalties to the employee. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Was the Degree of Discipline Reasonable? (Test Six)</b><br />
<br />
Progressive Discipline<br />
Was the misconduct subject to progressive discipline and, if so, was it applied? <br />
The idea of progressive discipline is to correct or rehabilitate the employee, however arbitrators recognize immediate termination as justifiable for the most sever misconduct: for instance, violence or theft in the workplace. What is employee’s prior disciplinary history? A poor disciplinary record can be seen as evidence that an employee’s misconduct is not amenable to rehabilitation. On the other hand, a good record can support the claim that the grievant deserves a second chance. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Was Any Disparate Treatment Present? (Test Seven)</b><br />
<br />
How has the employer treated other, similar infractions in the past? The general rule is that like cases should be treated alike. Disparate treatment subjects the employer to a charge of discrimination, which can undermine the validity of its just cause argument. Problems frequently arise where an employer decides to tighten up on prior lax enforcement of work rules. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Are There Any Mitigating Circumstances? </b><br />
<br />
Look for motive. Where fights or insubordination, profanity, etc., are involved, check to see if the grievant was provoked, or trying to defend him/herself. Look also to supervisor motive. If you can show that a supervisor has reason to “do in” the grievant, that should be brought out. Long, clean service record may be argued in favor of the proposition that the employee should be returned to work even where he/she is guilty of misconduct. In a disciplinary penalty dispute, the Arbitrator(s) have the authority to award the Employer’s or Union’s position or a penalty somewhere in between. (See JCLRC Clarifications). Therefore, mitigation evidence is key if the Arbitrator(s) will be deciding a disciplinary penalty. <br />
<br />
Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-72575767842184360762015-09-28T17:41:00.001-07:002015-09-28T17:41:31.827-07:00Miguel's Unique Response
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">A Typical Miguel Contreras Response<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Last night I tried a brain trick
that usually produces good results for me; I asked my brain to think about a difficult
question I was struggling with and to provide me a solution when I woke-up the
next morning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, inconsistent with
my experience I did not received my answer and here is what happened while I
was asleep. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Me:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I dreamt (well I think I was still asleep) I
woke up and went downstairs to make coffee when suddenly I saw Miguel sitting
in my kitchen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stunned, I asked Miguel why
was he in my kitchen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Miguel:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hey Stevarino, I am not sure why I am here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All I know is that I received a direct order from
the Boss to meet you today. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the way,
can I have some coffee? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Me: Sure, I think I remember
how you take it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here you go. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Miguel: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Mmmm! Goddamn (oops sorry Boss), Stevarino! This is some serious
gourmet shit!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Usually, I would be happy
with some freeze-dried Taster's Choice, but you spring this serious gourmet shit
on me! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What flavor is this?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Me:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Knock it off, Miguel. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know how good my coffee is. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am the one who buys it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyway, those lines about the gourmet coffee are
from the movie Pulp Fiction and when Jules says them to Jimmie it is a lot funnier.
<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Miguel:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, I thought I heard those lines
before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyway, what is up with
you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, please if you have a problem do
not make your problem my problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Me:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not really a problem Miguel, but more
of a question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, why do you always tell
me “don’t make your problem my problem?’<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Cellphone music tone of the theme song
from the movie Godfather suddenly goes off . . <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Miguel:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hello.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yes, yes, okay I will be right there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Sorry Stevarino, I have to leave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I have a full day of arbitrations and I am fighting to get some people
into paradise and not the other place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And,
some of the cases are simply losers but politically important for the
Boss.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Me:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Okay Miguel be well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt;">Then I woke up
with no solution. Or, was there a message somewhere in there that I did not
get? </span></div>
Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-54360850181401212112012-07-19T11:29:00.000-07:002012-07-19T11:29:00.239-07:00NO SURPRISE SOME CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-LABOR<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Today it is a daily occurrence for politicians to attack unionized
workers and unions. When we think about
these attacks, we of course expect them to come from the wealthy, Republican politicians
who work for the wealthy, and the misinformed. However, why are we seeing Democrats and termed-out
Democrats among those ranks? An examination
of all the reasons is well beyond the limits of this post so I will be brief. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><div class="MsoNormal">
Some politicians and billionaires believe government should implement
the corporate economic principle of "survival-of-the-fittest” instead of the
well-honored system of seniority. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bill
Gates and Microsoft engage in this corporate management style and that is one of the main reasons we see this in attacks against public employee unions (for a more detailed analysis of this point read Chris Hayes' brilliant book <i>Twilight of the Elites).</i> </div>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then there is the principle that little to no government is
best for the economy that was championed by Milton Friedman and President
Ronald Reagan. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, there is the
economic principle (also by Mr. Friedman and President Reagan) that no
interference whatsoever should come from government, communities or unions (and for an excellent read on
the devastating global impact of these two principles pickup Naomi Klein’s book
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Shock Therapy)</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now this leads me to the main question: so why are current and termed-out and allegedly pro-union Democrats leading this hate parade? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although I expect the reasons are many, one
thing I know is certain; some of these politicians lacked honest commitment to workers rights from the start.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently the labor movement has wisely recognized the critical
need to identify and support those politicians who in bad and good times will fight
for economic and social equality for all workers and who will not give in to the
temptations of money from the wealthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet at the
same time, labor must exercise caution and identify those politicians who have
shown in their actions or in their moral character that they will only stand
for workers’ rights when times are good. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Today’s political environment of hate towards workers and especially organized labor is a testament to how
important that analysis really is because we have these current and termed-out Democrats
chasing after the billionaires’ money whether the money is in the form of contributions
or in the form of highly-paid and prestige sounding non-profit jobs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, at the same time, they hold themselves
out as believers in equality for all workers and members of their communities. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now before I finish, allow me to make one point. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I recognize and thank the California politicians that continue to fight for workers’ justice; however, even
they have to admit some of their colleagues have embraced the anti-union agendas
of the wealthy mainly for their own personal gains.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, no matter how few these greedy Democrats,
we must hold them accountable for their greed and the harm they cause. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This leads me to a question that is the subject of another post.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What are we going to do about these “friends”
of labor and perpetuators of our society’s social ills before it is too late?
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
</span>Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-71023072758490774182012-07-10T14:47:00.002-07:002012-07-10T14:56:43.860-07:00California Supreme Court Allows Cities to Opt-out of Prevailing Wage Laws<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The California
Supreme Court last week issued a decision on state prevailing wage laws that has devastating implications for labor. The Court held that a charter city does not have to comply with state prevailing wage laws if it passes an ordinance prohibiting any city contracts from requiring payment of prevailing wages. Essentially, the Court held prevailing wage issues are matters of
municipal concern, rather than statewide concern, and that this cannot be cured
by state legislation because it's a constitutional matter. Furthermore, the Court's specious findings for the need for prevailing laws and its equally erroneous distinction between statewide concerns and municipal concerns will have frightening and broad implications. What is next? Public bidding? Pension rights? Agency Shops? Can we expect that billionaires will soon sponsor and financially support campaigns for new city ordinances that reject prevailing wage laws? Only time will tell. <b><a href="http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S173586.PDF">Jump to Court Decision</a> </b></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<b><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-56759681035922642602012-07-10T13:23:00.002-07:002012-07-10T14:57:04.964-07:00CA Cities Can Opt-out of State Prevailing Wage LawsSteven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-31370363947402274302012-07-08T14:15:00.002-07:002012-07-08T14:20:46.409-07:00California Paycheck Deception Initiative<w:sdt xpath="/ns0:BlogPostInfo/ns0:PostTitle" docpart="F8615568F319433E8FC3B16E65D5DC60" text="t" storeitemid="X_97906E3D-868F-4F85-9F51-F5B72A0814B3" title="Post Title" id="89512082"> <p class="Publishwithline"><b><u>PAYCHECK DECEPTION INITIATIVE</u></b></p><p class="Publishwithline">Workers in California must turn their attention to defeating the “Special Interest Money Now Act” (“Paycheck Deception Act”) that is on this November balloting.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This initiative is an attempt by wealthy and political dominant billionaires to take control of California politics by eliminating the ability of labor organizations to support and elect candidates who believe in workers’ safety and fair wages and instead buy politicians who will act solely in the interest of the wealthy.</p></w:sdt><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Major Provisions</b><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In a few words the major provisions of this initiative limit the rights of labor unions to contribute money to a candidate's campaign for political office or to any committee controlled by a candidate. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Specifically, it prohibits:<o:p></o:p></p> <ul style="margin-top:0in" type="square"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in">Labor unions from contributing money for these purposes<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in">Government contractors from contributing money for these purposes in cases when the candidate, if elected, could play a role in awarding a government contract to the contractor<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in">Corporations, government contractors, government employers, and labor unions cannot deduct wages from employees and union members to be used for political purposes<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in">Corporation and labor unions can receive voluntary contributions, but not through payroll deductions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Instead, voluntary contributions must be made through other means such as a check, transfer from a bank account, or credit card.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>These voluntary contributions would have to be authorized in writing by the employee, every year.<o:p></o:p></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Sponsors </b><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto">The sponsors of the initiative are no surprise. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They include billionaires A Jerrold Perenchio and an array of Orange County political groups.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Top contributors include William E. Bloomfield Jr., Larry Smith, Paycheck Protection 2010, Charles Munger, Jr., Timothy Draper, William Edwards, Wayne Hughes, Frank E. Baxter, Citizen Power Campaign, Lion Club OC, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><o:p> </o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Prior Attempts to Limit Unions’ Ability to Contribute to Candidates <o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In 2010, a similar proposal attempted but failed to reach the ballot.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Earlier in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger’s special election included Proposition 75, “Public Employee Union Dues Restrictions on Political Contributions. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Unlike the current Paycheck Deception Act, Prop 75 targeted public sector unions, not all unions. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Prop 75 would have required public sector unions to obtain annual written permission from each member that specified: the amount of fees that could be used by the unions for general political purposes and or an amount that could be used by the unions for a political contribution to a specific political committee, which the employee had to identify. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Prop 75 was defeated.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The final vote count was 53.5% to 46.5%. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In 1998, there was Proposition 226, “Political Contributions by Employees, Union Members, and Foreign Entities Initiative Statute” that also tried to stop payroll deductions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Prop 226 required all employers and labor organizations to obtain employee or member's permission before withholding wages or using union dues or fees for political contributions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Employee or member's permission had to be obtained annually using a prescribed form. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The final vote count was 54.33% to 45.77%.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Utah, Idaho, Ohio, Wyoming, Michigan, and Washington State all have similar “Paycheck Protection” laws.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>An example of the possible impact comes from Utah.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Utah Education Association reported that since a paycheck protection measure became law they experienced a drop in voluntary contributions for political purposed <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><u>from 68% to 7%.</u></b><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Proposed Statute <o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act would amend California Government Codes as follows. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >§85150 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no government contractor, or committee sponsored by a government contractor, shall make a contribution to any elected officer or committee controlled by any elected officer if such elected officer makes, participates in making or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence the granting, letting, or awarding of a public contract to the government contractor, during the period in which the decision to grant, let, or award the contract is to be made and during the term of the contract. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >§85151 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee's written consent, and that consent shall be effective for no more than one (1) year.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(c) This section shall not apply to deductions for retirement benefit, health, life, death or disability insurance, or other similar benefit, nor shall it apply to an employee's voluntary deduction for the benefit of a charitable organization organized under Title 26 United States Code section 501(c)(3).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >§85152 For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(a) "Corporation" means every corporation organized under the laws of this state, any other state of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(b) "Government contractor" means any person, other than an employee of a government employer, who is a party to a contract between the person and a government employer to provide goods, real property, or services to a government employer. Government contractor includes a public employee labor union which is a party to a contract with a government employer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(c) "Government employer" means the State of California, or any of its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, counties, cities, charter counties, charter cities, charter city and counties, school districts, University of California, special districts, boards, commissions, and agencies, but not including the United States Government.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(d) "Labor union" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(e) "Political purposes" means a payment made to influence or attempt to influence the action of voters for or against the nomination or election of a candidate or candidates, or the qualification or passage of any measure or any payment received by or made at the behest of a candidate, a controlled committee, a committee of a political party; including a state central committee, and county central committee, or an organization formed or existing primarily for political purposes, including, but not limited to, a political action committee established by any membership organization, labor union, public employee labor union, or corporation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(f) "Public employee labor union" means a labor union in which the employees participating in the labor union are employees of a government employer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(g) All other terms used this Article that are defined by the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended (commencing with section 81000 et seq.), or by regulation enacted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, shall have the same meaning as provided therein, as they existed on January 1,2011.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >SECTION 3. Implementation<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(a) If any provision of this measure, or part of it, or the application of any such provision or part to any person, organization, or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, then the remaining provisions, parts, and applications shall remain in effect without the invalid provision, part, or application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(b) This measure is not intended to interfere with any existing contract or collective bargaining agreement. Except as governed by the National Labor Relations Act, no new or amended contract or collective bargaining agreement shall be valid if it violates this measure.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(c) This measure shall be liberally construed to further its purposes. In any legal action brought by an employee or union member to enforce the provisions of this Act, the burden shall be on the employer or labor union to prove compliance with the provisions herein.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" >(d) Notwithstanding Government Code section 81012, the provisions of this measure may not be amended by the Legislature. This measure may only be amended or repealed by a subsequent initiative measure or pursuant to Article II, Section 10(e).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Impact <o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The passage of this initiative would devastate unions’ election rights as follows:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Although under the proposed law both unions and corporations may still contribute to political activities, but since union contributions come primarily from members, as opposed to companies who have budgets for political activities, this initiative would primarily have a devastating impact on unions.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Corporations and wealthy individuals tend to fund ballot measures, Super PACS, and political parties, not individual candidates.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore, again the impact on unions is highly disproportionate.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Proposed provision §85151(a) prohibits <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">any deduction</i> from employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation for any amount of money to be used for political purposes.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>That means that voluntary contributions under proposed §85151(b) would have to come through writing checks or making transfers from bank accounts, or credit card transactions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This would be an onerous process for unions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>As Common Cause, a non-profit citizen lobbying organization, points out in a memorandum, workers, especially lower-wage workers, are less likely to have bank accounts to make these transactions possible, even if they wanted to make voluntary contributions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">§<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>In addition, for voluntary contributions, unions would have to secure written consent from employees giving voluntary contributions that must be renewed yearly.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This would pose a huge obstacle to the collection of even voluntary contributions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Every year unions would have to secure new consent forms from employees willing to give voluntary contributions. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION IS NOW.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>WE MUST ORGANIZE AN EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN TO EDUCATE VOTERS OF THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC GOALS OF THIS INITIATIVE AND STOP BILLIONAIRES FROM BUYING POLITICIANS.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></b></p>Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-28783838832747238712011-03-25T12:30:00.000-07:002011-03-25T12:31:49.100-07:00The New Republic: Triangle Fire of 1911Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-23947869513264119822011-03-24T11:12:00.000-07:002012-07-08T14:35:10.674-07:00Miguel On Union BustingA great philosopher once wrote that it is always more meaningful to praise someone’s genius if he is no longer with us because there can be no suspicion about motive since one cannot gain favors or seek reciprocal praises from a person who has passed on. It is with this axiom in mind that I remember my great friend Miguel.
Miguel was a great labor leader who always showed his love for working people; however, he was also a very funny man and that too will live with me forever. With this in mind, I decided to write fictional dialogs that have taken place between my good friend and me and his toughts regarding current events.
<br />
<br />
A lot of time has passed since Miguel left us, so I do not mean to disrespect him, his family, and other friends. I write this simply to provide you will a brief look into the mind of a genius who found the lighter side to most serious issues. Enjoy and if you like, I will post others. Just let me know.
<br />
<br />
. . . .
<br />
<br />
This took place sometime around 11:50 a.m. the other day.
<br />
<br />
A deep and trembling voice suddenly out of nowhere is heard in the law office of Steven Holguin:
<br />
<br />
Deep Voice: “Mr. Holguin, I have Miguel on the line for you. He wants to speak with you.”<br />
<br />
Steve: “Can you tell him I am rather . . .”<br />
<br />
Deep Voice: “Please hold for him.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: Hey Steverino, how you been? Want to have some lunch?<br />
<br />
Steve: Hey Miguel, sure, but I didn’t know you still eat food.<br />
<br />
Miguel: “What, I can eat all I want now. It never shows. Wait ‘til you see how good I look.”<br />
<br />
Steve: “Sure that sounds good but can you come to my office first? You know I don’t drive anymore. Then we will find a place near here to eat.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: “Okay but I am already here. Turn around.”<br />
<br />
Steve: “Wow, that was quick. Okay, let me see how you look. Bullshit Miguel, you look the same to me.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: “Yeah this observation coming from the guy who is blind. Everyone else says I look great.”<br />
<br />
Steve: “Right, they must work for you. Hey, before we go, did you read this article in the daily fish rap about union-busting stuff happening around the country? And the point the author makes in the article that because of the media hype against unions, young people are joining the ranks as union organizers?”
<br />
<br />
Miguel: “Does the article say anything about me?”<br />
<br />
Steve: “No, not this time Miguel.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: “While that is no great news, young people have been working for unions for years. Do you know why?”<br />
<br />
Steve: “No, but I am sure you will tell me.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: “Here are the top ten reasons young people join unions as organizers.”<br />
<br />
“Number 10: Their 24 hour 7 days a week work schedule gives them an excuse not to attend boring family events.<br />
<br />
Number 9: Fighting for workers' rights is a great pickup line.<br />
<br />
Number 8: Their parents allow them to live two more years at home rent-free.
<br />
<br />
Number 7: They do not have to spend money on clothes or haircuts so they save some money.<br />
<br />
Number 6: No one expects them to own a dependable car so they can save some money there too.<br />
<br />
Number 5: They have a great excuse to get out of a steady relationship because they are too busy with the movement.<br />
<br />
Number 4: Someone else pays their cell phone bills.<br />
<br />
Number 3: People see them on television shouting, protesting, and being arrested, and they think that looks cool.<br />
<br />
Number 2: “They want to work for great leaders like me.”<br />
<br />
And,
Number 1: “What else can they do with a college degree now days? Teach? Yeah, good luck with that career.”<br />
<br />
Steve: “That is funny Miguel but I think I read that somewhere before.”<br />
<br />
Miguel: “You did, but I inspired the author to write it. Hey, I just realized I have to go. See you later Steverino. Be well.”<br />
<br />
Steve: Be well Miguel.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-35757740935371527732011-03-24T07:53:00.000-07:002011-03-24T08:21:04.461-07:00The U.S. Constitution Protects the Right to UnionizeThe U.S. Constitution protects and the U.S. public policy encourages the right of workers to unionize. Despite the corporate media and conservative critics that serve the interest of the wealthy dishonest attempts to demonize organized labor the truth is that the government has the power to regulate and pass laws enforcing labor relations and collective bargaining rights. Moreover, this country embraces those rights as a public policy. If you do not believe me trying doing some homework. Okay, you are too busy to do the homework, then read on because I have done a little of the work you.
<br>
<br>
It is not my intention to cover the overwhelming statutes, regulations, and court cases that support the proposition that the U.S. Constitution protects workers’ right to collective bargaining and to unionize. No one can handle such a monster size task in a simple blog. I will leave that work to others to perform; however, I will provide you with a brief introduction to the U.S. Constitutional provisions that I believe support those rights. It is my intent to give you enough facts that will help you recognize the lies stated by the corporate media and conservative critics who serve the wealthy in their attempts to bust unions.
<br>
<br>
Allow me to start-off with an admission that no provision in the U.S. Constitution directly or literally addresses workers’ right to collective bargaining or join unions. However, I hope that we can agree that the U.S. Constitutional does not always literally spell-out every constitutional right we enjoy in this country. People, with at least a fifth grade education, accept the fact that many of our rights have developed over the years by principles of law established by the courts and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, if we can all agree to the obvious that the absence of direct statutory language does not make an established right any less enforceable or meaningful, then we can move on to those provisions of the U.S. Constitution that Congress and the courts have found to support the right to unionize.
<br>
<br>
Let us start with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No intense research or citations to law or court cases are need to make the equally obvious point that the First Amendment protection us from government infringement of our rights to the freedom of speech and assembly. Although the law does not specifically enumerate every type of individual, group, type of speech, or events covered by the law, Congress and the courts have broadly applied this law; and, once again, it is no less enforceable or meaningful. Therefore, if every person has the right to assemble with people of their choosing, then it naturally follows that workers have the right to form unions. What more need I say?
<br>
<br>
Next, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution permits Congress to pass laws regulating labor–management relations. The Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the U. S. Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the government has the power to regulate labor relations. Relying on this law, Congress in the 1930s passed the Wagner Act -or the National Labor Relations Act - as we know it today. In passing the Wagner Act, Congress made it very clear that the public policy of the United States favored workers’ rights to unionize and encouraged collective bargaining. Anyone aware of the current attacks against workers will agree that the intent and the public policy reasons as stated by Congress in the 1930s are equally relevant today as they were then. In 1930s, Congress stated as follows:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>“The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership associations substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial dispute arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees."</blockquote>
<blockquote>. . .</blockquote>
<blockquote>"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the cases of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representation of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.“</blockquote>
<blockquote>See, the National Labor Relations Act, Section 1, cited as 29 U.S.C. § 151.</blockquote>
In addition, the U. S. Supreme Court has relied on basic due process of law principles of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to resolve labor-management cases. Of course, the Fifth Amendment guarantees us due process of law at the federal level and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the same rights at the state and local levels. Federal courts have relied on the these Amendments to uphold laws providing for the establishment of minimum wages, limits on the length of workweeks, requirements to pay overtime, the elimination of discriminatory conduct by employers against workers, and many other rights. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. Other federal laws prohibit wage discrimination based on gender, age, or disability.
<br>
<br>
Of course, individual states may pass laws giving workers greater rights than those guaranteed by federal laws, but the Supremacy Clause in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution and the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment extends these federal protections to the state and local levels. Therefore, a state can never take away federally established workers’ rights to bargain collectively and to unionize.
<br>
<br>
As I stated above, this was only a brief look into the U.S. Constitution and its provisions that support workers rights to organize, unionize, and collective bargaining. The rest of the homework is up to you to complete but I hope by now you have enough correct information to reject the misinformation out there that workers have no legal rights to bargain collectively or to unionize.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-80007616834358335882011-03-16T11:43:00.000-07:002011-03-16T12:48:11.619-07:00Cutbacks in workers' pay and benefits will not solve our economic and social problems.I wrote this blog last year but given the recent and visible attacks against workers and unions in this country, I decided to re-post it.
<br>
<br>
In this post I layout my opinion that the degree of income inequality in this country (as in any country) has a direct relationship to our economic and social troubles. Contrary to the rhetoric repeated by politicians, working people and their wages and benefits did not cause the economic recession and reducing the wages and benefits is not the remedy; instead, the greed of the wealthy income earners caused this problem and a redistribution of wealth is the solution.
<br>
<br>
Since the 1970s, the wealthy people of this country (i.e., the top one percent of income earners) have outpaced the middle class and poor in the amounts of income they have accumulated. During this time and in the 1980's working people could not keep up with the cost of living the American Dream on one income, so to afford the dream the nonworking spouse had to join the work force and for a few years that generate enough income to live comfortably. In the 1990s and 2000s, having two incomes was not enough. The income gap between the middle class and the wealthy got wider and the cost of living the American Dream seemed out of reach. Then in 2008, the Great Recession hit this country and immediately the wealthy started to blame workers and unions for the financial problems of this country.
<br>
<br>
State and local government have bought into this propaganda and have ignored the reality of how the elite played fantasy finance with other peoples' money, lost the money, and as a result caused the Great Recession. But instead of punishing these crooks, the wealthy received trillions of dollars from the government treasuries to make up for these gamblers' lost profits. Then after the rich received governemnt money they started a campaign against workers and unions and falsely claimed it was workers’ greed and unions that caused this country’s economic downfall. By falsely identifing workers and their unions as the causes of the recession the wealthy now want a decrease in workers’ wages and benefits, cuts in spending for most social service programs, and new sales taxes on basic consumer items. However, at the same time the wealthy want more taxes cuts on their income and investments, elimination of government oversight on banking and commerce, and privatization of public programs like education and socia sercuity.
<br>
<br>
During the past forty years the wealthy have taken actions just like these to maximize their profits by polluting the environment, violating employee wage and hour laws, moving their plants to other countries and leaving millions of workers unemployed and homeless. Within these decades the wealthy have convinced the voters to vote against their own self-interest and vote for politicans who serve only the rich resulting in a steady decline in livable wages, less public funds, slow destruction and privatization of government services, deep cuts in social welfare programs,the elimination of unions and basic bargainig rights, and the immediate deportation of immigrant workers and their children.
<br>
<br>
We cannot continue to ignore the obvious that income equality results in a dysfunctional society. California for example is one of the top ten worst states based on income inequality along with Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Studies have shown that direct results of income gap widening on working communities include increases in levels of mental illness (beyond those related to drug and alcohol abuse), staggering infant mortality and life expectancy rates, overwhelming obesity rates, severe drop in children education performances, rising teen pregnancies, higher unemployment or underemployment and unsustainable rates of imprisonment.
<br>
<br>
Yet in the mist of all these social and economic ills caused by the greed of the wealthy and corrupt government policies, people point their fingers of blame at the victims themselves. The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. [For an excellent and detailed analysis of this theory regarding the global and national causes and effects of income equality read: The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Bloomberg Press, 2009].
<br>
<br>
We must embrace an agenda dedicated to providing our communities with jobs that produce higher livable wages and benefits with a goal to narrow the income inequality. How do we do this?
<br>
<br>
Of course, I know there are no easy answers to these problems and solutions are beyond this post, but here are some suggestions. First, the local and state governments must pass legislation that help employers, unions, politicans, and everyone in the communities to work together to create safe work places that enhance the manufacturing of goods and create well paying jobs in the United States. An example of such legislation would include investments in clean energy technology and manufacturing. Second, the centuries old business model of profits at the cost of social and economic problems must cease. We must replace this greedy and antiquated model with a new model that focuses more on the prosperity and well-being of everyone. Corporations and the rich must pay their fair share of taxes. Third, enact legislation and policies that reward employers who apply this new model of business with tax and other monetary incentives. Then punish and eliminate employers who continue to pollute the environment and violate workers rights to a safe workplace and fair wages and benefits.
<br>
<br>
Of course, this is a difficult and complex problem; however, how else can we address these ills if we do not start talking about them and being honest with ourselves?Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-77875951013519737602011-03-08T08:23:00.000-08:002011-03-08T08:23:10.795-08:00Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states | McClatchy<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html?storylink=addthis">Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states McClatchy</a>Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-16635264063446003372011-03-06T17:30:00.000-08:002011-03-06T18:32:30.406-08:00Why Does the NFL Want a Lockout?The good news over the weekend is that the contract negotiations between the National Football League owners and the player union will continue for a few more days. The bad news is that the owners continue to threaten the players with a lockout. If the lockout happens that would result in another blow to organized labor because no matter what you think about the players' pay scale, they are workers and the owners motive is to break the union and make more money.
<br>
<br>
I recognize that many football fans know little about labor disputes and most likely do not know the difference between a strike and a lockout. Plus, I know that should the NFL lockout the players, most fans will blame the players and make uninformed claims that players make too much money and should be happy with the large salaries they earn. Well that is the purpose of this blog. Before you start passing judgment, I ask that you consider the following information.
<br>
<br>
Let me start with a fact that the NFL is a monopoly. An eight billion dollar a year monopoly and that figure does not include the other income received from the sales of NFL gear and revenue generated or saved by tax-free incentives given to teams by local governments. Yet, in spite of all their profits, the NFL is threatening the players with a lockout. The NFL’s game plan is to force the players to accept substantial cuts in pay, so the owners can use the money generated by television to build new stadiums, which in the past was subsidized by local taxpayers. However, now that taxpayers have caught on the NFL's game plan, they are refusing to subsidize the construction of these new stadiums, the owners want the players to take less money so the owners can use the money to construct new stadiums. Also, the owners want two more regular season games per year (so the broadcasting fees will go up) yet the owners are not willing to address players pensions and health insuarnce coverage, especially for former players who suffer from life-threatening injuries and long-terms illness.
<br>
<br>
By now you should be asking if this monopoly is legal? The answer is yes. It started in 1961 when Congress permitted the NFL to negotiate collectively over television broadcasting rights with CBS. Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act granting the NFL an exemption to antitrust laws. [See, 15 U.S.C. § 1291]. The justification behind the passage of this Act was to insure that the public could view football games on regular television over the airwaves. Okay, maybe that made sense then, but does it still hold true today?
<br>
<br>
For decades, the NFL's ironclad hold over the sport of professional football brought the owners truck loads of money, but then they wanted more. So in my opinion the NFL owners used its power to blackmail local governments into given the owners money by threatening to take their teams to other cities. In fear of losing a team to another city, the owners would bully local governments into delivering multi-million dollar stadiums subsidized with public money either directly or through tax breaks. Then if the local government does not play along, the team owner took the team to another city. For years the owners became rich off of the profits made by local tax payers building the stadiums. Now that taxpayers are not longer allowing their local governments to hand-out money to the NFL owners, the owners want the players to take cuts in pay.
<br>
<br>
But you ask what happened to the original reason for the anti-trust exemption? Does it still hold water? In my opinion the answer is no. Currently you can watch one or at times maybe two professional football game on Sunday mornings or afternoons over the free airwaves. Yet on Sunday night, Monday night, and Thursday night you need cable or satellite coverage to watch the other games.
<br>
<br>
Okay you say, what about the big money the player receive for playing the sport?True, the players make a lot more than the average worker, but at what risks? A player in the NFL has a 5% to 10% chance of contracting dementia, Alzheimer's or another cognitive disease that is related to concussions and traumatic brain injuries sustained during his brief years in the NFL. These figures may not include the other quality of life limiting injuries to the players’ bodies such as spinal and leg injuries that players must endure for the rest of their lives with limited or no health benefits to count on in exchange for an average career of three to four years of playing professional football.
<br>
<br>
Now again you say the physical risks they face go with the sport and the money they earn. True there are several million-dollar players in the sport. However, for each one of these franchise players many more earn the league minimum of $400,000 (and the NFL wants to cut rookie pay too). Moreover, these players usually end up cut or suffer a career ending injury that leaves them with no other marketable skills to support themselves or their families.
<br>
<br>
All I am asking is that you think about these facts before you start joining the sports talk radio jocks who complain about the high pay of the football players. Plus, should the NFL hire “replacement” players for next year’s football season remember these facts.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-22230300085250022352010-08-20T10:31:00.000-07:002011-03-08T11:01:26.863-08:00"At the risk of seeming ridiculous . . ."Sometimes like this morning, I find myself trying to control my anger towards the rich and their control over the economy and how they can easily decide who and who does not prosper. The thoughts of the greed that flows in their veins make me sick. The abuses and oppression they rain down on workers everyday leaves me feeling helpless. Before long I start questioning whether my forty year of activism (which began on August 29, 1970) and the efforts of thousands more are actually having any impact on these social ills. Then I start thinking about simply giving up the fight. It is when I get to that low point I quickly re-read a letter a hero of mine once wrote and I immediately find the courage and inspiration to fight on.
After reading the letter a few minutes ago, I decided to post some of it so that when you have similar days you too can find the inspiration you need to fight on by reading his words. Here are excerpts in abbreviated form of some of the words in his letter. Enjoy.
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolution is guided by great feeling of love. It is impossible to think a genuine revolution lacking in quality. Revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. In these circumstances, one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism, cold scholasticism, and into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, acts that serve as examples, and a moving force. We must
not descend to the level of small doss of daily affection."
-- Ernesto "Che" Guevara (March 12, 1965, letter to Carlos Quijano, editor of Marcha).Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-49844433655355133122010-08-12T10:37:00.000-07:002010-08-12T11:04:45.940-07:00Words We Unintentionally Misspelled That Got Us In Deep Trouble.This morning I wrote a letter to a client that contained a typo. Wth Spellcheck I found the mistake and corrected it before I sent the letter to the client. But sometimes Spellcheck does not catch the mistake, because we may have used an actual word. What I mean is that Spellcheck will not flag a correctly spelled word and the document will go out with a word we did not intend to use. This got me to think about how simple misspelled words that are not discovered sometimes get us in deep trouble that we never intended to happen.
Take me for example, I once type in an extra "m" next to the letter "r" when I intended to call someone a <em>moron</em>. Here is an example of what I wanted to write; "John acts like such a moron when he drinks too much." Another example, I once typed an "f" and an another time an "s" when I wanted to use the word <em>luck</em>. Here is what I intended to say; " John went to Las Vegas last weekend and had good luck."
Another time, an old college girlfriend of my made a mistake that almost gave her mother a heart attack. When the old girlfriend received a letter from her mother asking her if she had a boyfriend in college, she meant to reply "yes, I have <em>Steven</em>." But she forgot the "t" in my name.
How about you guys. Have you had any such experiences with simple misspelled words not caught by Spellcheck?Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-84140394466455866302010-08-10T08:02:00.000-07:002010-08-10T08:17:14.294-07:00Top Ten Reason I Stunk at Being a VatoMost people who know me know I grew up on a violent street in East Los Angeles. A few of you who know me know I tried very hard to be a gang member. Only one or two of you know that I actually stunk at being a V<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">ato</span>. So, I thought I would give all of you the top ten reasons why.
Number 10. The very first time I spray-painted my name on a wall two Los Angeles County Sheriffs were standing right behind me.
Number 9. I honestly thought tubes of glue were for building model airplanes and cars.
Number 8. I secretly enjoyed Jazz and Rock 'n Roll music more than the Oldies.
Number 7. Wearing a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pendleton</span> shirt and a wool cap in the summer made me sweat to much.
Number 6. I though it was plain stupid to spray starch on a pair of Levis and to put creases on the front of the legs.
Number 5. Very time I heard someone say "Homes" I could not stop thinking about the porno star with the same last name.
Number 4. I could never look cool because I had to wear a catholic school uniform and carry home books from school.
Number 3. I once found keys to the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">neighborhood</span> liquor store but I actually returned them to the owner.
Number 2. My father always made me get a "two-line" haircut just like the one JFK had.
Number 1. My first car was a 1964 MG Midget while everyone else had a Chevy.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-59663102348627874132010-08-06T07:53:00.000-07:002010-08-06T08:27:30.235-07:00The Top Ten Warning Signs the End is Near<strong>Number 10</strong>. We learn Corona Beer really does contain human urine but we never noticed because we drink it with a lime. <strong>Number 9</strong>. The United Nations invites Yogi Berra to speak about the future of the world and he says "it ain't what it used to be." <strong>Number 8</strong>. Airline travelers vote LAX the best airport in the world. <strong>Number 7.</strong> Drug lords win the presidency and every state governorship in Mexico; they appoint generals and police chiefs and peace reigns throughout the land.
<strong>Number 6</strong>. Goldman Sachs legally owns and operates a casino on Wall Street and it is named the "Oracle." <strong>Number 5</strong>. The Los Angeles Clippers repeat as NBA Champions. <strong>Number 4</strong>. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Walmart</span> encourages its employees to join a union. <strong>Number 3</strong>. Just as we do in our elections, the chickens vote for <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Colonel</span> Sanders. <strong>Number 2</strong>. A real pig wearing lipstick becomes a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate.
<strong>Number 1.</strong> Aliens from outer space held in Area 51 and Roswell stage peace hunger strikes to bring attention to their overcrowded living conditions and charges of sexual abuse.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-55254232315331731742010-08-05T08:21:00.000-07:002010-08-05T08:48:00.219-07:00Top Ten Reasons Some Men Will Vote For Sarah Palin10. She looks hot when she dresses in her husband's hunting clothes.
9. She catches fish with a wink and a net.
8. She'll use the power of the Presidency to get back at her nasty in-laws.
7. She quit her last job and told the people who hired her to shove it.
6. We get to see her rise up on her hind legs and act like a Mama Grisly.
5. She knows cave people lived with dinosaurs just like the Flintstones.
4. She enjoys shooting animals with a rifle from a helicopter.
3. She uses simple words even if she has to make them up.
2. She knows she is not smart and never pretends to be.
1. She has big <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">cojones</span>.Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7909315305605757133.post-39623803699692428802010-08-01T15:52:00.000-07:002010-08-01T15:52:23.346-07:00It only takes a moment to change your life.This morning over coffee with family someone said it takes only a moment to change someone's life. The content of the comment was made during a discussion on how quickly a young person can go from an adolesent to an adult based on a single experience. Although I was quick to agree with the comment simply based on a common sense reaction, I later tried to recall my own one minute of life changing moment. Within a few minutes I nailed it. <br />
<br />
Several years ago a cousin was murder on the street where I spent most of my childhood. He was my role model, my protector, and everything I envisioned a brave and proud man represented. At the time of his death I was in my early twentys. This was in the early to mid 1970's when I lived in a small town in Orange County working for an electronic factory. Three years earlier I left East Los Angeles to escape years of street violence, drugs, gangs, and boredom. I thought in the process I may find the purpose of life because I thought life had to be more than simply surviving to the next day. Then one day while visiting family I received a phone call that my cousin was being taken to the County Hospital. <br />
<br />
When minutes I arrived at the hospital to find my cousin in post-op and heard the nurse say he would die at any second. I walked into the room alone (although I was with my father but he did not want to walk into the room) and I immediately saw my cousin on a bed with his head wapped in bandages. I later learned that his head had been savagely beaten open with a metal object. As I stood by the bed staring at my cousin a nurse suggested I touch his body before he died, which I did. Immediately upon placing my hand on his chest I felt a fast flow of energy go up my arm and into my chest. At the same moment my cousin passed-away. I quicklly turned to the nurse who had suggested I touch my cousin but he was no way to be seen. <br />
<br />
It was at that moment that my life changed forever. I immediately became convinced that I had to commit my life to something greater than myself and to help my community and this world a better place to live. Within weeks I had quit my job, sold all my belongings and enrolled in college with the determination of becoming an attorney. Within a few months I became very active in the struggle to bring about social and economic change for working people, which I am still doing today as a labor law attorney representing some of the most progessive and creative unions in Los Angeles. Yes at that moment my life changed forever.<br />
<br />
So, I ask you this question. What was your life changing moment?Steven Holguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12218873534120986832noreply@blogger.com6