Across the country, more workers are forming unions than ever before - in fact, nearly a quarter of all American workers that formed unions in the last year joined SEIU. Our members know that by working together, we can improve both the quality of services we provide and the communities in which we live.

Here's a snapshot of the "union difference" across the American workforce, highlighting facts from research recently conducted by the Center for American Progress, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, UC Berkeley Labor Center, Labor Project for Working Families and the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

13.7 percent of all U.S. workers are unionized--up from 13.4 percent in 2007.

In 2008, nearly half a million workers joined unions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is the largest on record increase since 1983, the first year of comparable data.

Salary and Benefit Difference Between Unionized and Non-Unionized Workers

In nearly every occupational category among full-time wage and salary workers, union members earn more than non-union workers. By comparing the wages of workers within occupational groups, the union difference is clear. For example, for workers employed in the public sector, the difference in salary amounts to roughly $150 more a week--approximately $600 more a month--for union vs. non-union.

The overall averages are even more striking. Between 2004 and 2007, unionized worker wages were an average of 11.3 percentage points higher ($2.26 more an hour) than non-unionized workers. Among full-time wage and salary workers in 2008, union members had median weekly earnings of $886, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $691. That's a monthly difference in salary of nearly $800 for union members vs. non-union.

Healthcare

Union workers nationwide are:

• 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance
• 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.
• Companies with 30 percent or more unionized workers are five times as likely to have their entire family health insurance premium paid for in comparison to companies with no unionized workers. Even when unionized employees are required to pay part of their family insurance premium, they pay a much lower share of the premium than do non-unionized workers.
• 46 percent of unionized workers receive full pay while on sick leave, versus only 29 percent of non-union workers.

Women

• Make up 45 percent of union workers--and by 2020, women will be the majority of the unionized workforce.
• Unionization raises female workers' wages by $2.00/hour (or 11.2 percent)
• 19 percent more likely to have employer paid health insurance (joining a union has a much larger effect on a woman's probability of having health insurance than a four-year college degree (8.4 percent increase).
• 24.7 percent more likely to have pension.

Low-wage Workers

• Unionization raises the wages of the typical low-wage worker (one in the 10th percentile) by 20.6 percent.

Latinos

• 10.7 percent of unionized workers are Latino (up from 9.8% in 2007)
• Latinos represent the largest growth rate of unionized workers--in 2008, more than 140,000 Hispanics became union members.
• Unionization raises Latino workers' wages by $2.60/hour (17.1 percent)
• 26 percent more likely to have employer paid health insurance
• 27 percent more likely to have pension
• Low-wage Latinos who belong to a union are 41 percent more likely to have employer-paid health insurance

African Americans

• 54 percent of all full-time Black workers in the United States receive low wages, working for $12.87 an hour or less
• Unionization raises African American workers' wages by $2.00/hour (11.2 percent)

Without Unions, Wages Haven't Come Close to Keeping up with Productivity or Inflation

Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers' wages moved in tandem. But from 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75.0 percent, while workers' inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent--which means that workers were compensated for only 30.2 percent of their productivity gains.

If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008, as they were during the middle part of the 20th century, average wages would be $28.53 per hour--42.7 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.

"All we wanted were safety shoes." This was the answer cafeteria workers gave when asked why they formed a union at their school. The workers had often asked their managers to provide them with safety shoes, and every time they asked they were told no.

When the organizing election drew near, the trucking company did everything they could to get Doug's co-workers to rally against him. Management made phone calls to workers and issued veiled threats, held closed-door meetings and spread nasty rumors ... all in an attempt to discredit the one worker who had been most vocal in fighting for fair representation.

The same thing happened to Jerry and Bert when they tried to help organize their workplace. Their company promptly hired an anti-worker law firm and soon afterwards forced their co-workers into captive audience meetings where they were all fed empty promises and even emptier threats.

After all that these Nebraskans have seen in their workplace, it's understandable that they might be a bit confused as to when big business decided that they were the true champions of workers' rights. After all, surveys show that, when faced with an organizing campaign, 75 percent of companies hire union-busting law firms, 92 percent force their employees to attend closed-door sessions and 25 percent actually fire at least one union-supporting worker.

And yet, there they are on our televisions and in our papers, big business groups, the Nebraskan Republican party and even state elected officials, claiming to promote and protect "workplace democracy." The target of all these attack ads? The Employee Free Choice Act, which is perhaps the single most important piece of workplace legislation Congress has considered in almost 75 years.

The Employee Free Choice Act in a nutshell: Freedom

What the Employee Free Choice Act will do is simple and straightforward (the entire proposal is only three pages long), and it adheres very closely to a basic principle--that workers should have the freedom to be able to choose whether and how to form a union on their own, without fear of interference from their employer.

In essence, the bill is composed of three parts: (1) allowing workers to form a union through majority petition, (2) creating a fair system of arbitration to ensure that unions and employers work together in negotiating new contracts and (3) imposing meaningful penalties on companies that illegally coerce or fire union-supporting workers.

Penalties would also be levied against unions if they break the law, a fact that is often either left out or misrepresented by opponents of the bill in their efforts to mislead Nebraskans.

What's missing from the bill is the boogeyman that corporations, the Chamber of Commerce and the Nebraska Republican party have invented for their current attack ads, namely, any provision that would endanger a workers' right to a secret ballot. This right is already guaranteed by the 1935 Wagner Act and nothing in the Employee Free Choice Act would affect it in any way.

But, of course, the corporate lobbyists know this already. Like everything else that these Wall Street CEOs do, this current campaign is about nothing but their bottom line. Many companies, both here in Nebraska and across the country, have made billions by ignoring basic workplace protections and slashing benefits and wages to the bare minimum. Invariably, the losers in this arrangement are our working families.

Economic studies suggest that when workers are given fair wages, their communities benefit as a whole. Higher wages mean higher spending, and higher spending means more goods and more services and, most importantly, more jobs to meet this rise in demand. It's for this reason that a recent study by the Center for American Progress predicted that the Employee Free Choice Act could pump as much as $176 million back into Nebraska's economy.

Our 30-second ads: A message from Nebraskans

What if television ads about the Employee Free Choice Act did tell the truth? What if they reflected the real world as experienced every day by hardworking and common sense Nebraskans?

Well, to find out we asked a few of our friends to tell us their story in 30-second ads:

Freedom--Loren Cassidy, electrical worker in Omaha

"The face of this country is right here. It's not the greed of Wall Street. It's not bailouts and bonus checks. It doesn't rise and fall with the stock market. The real face of our country is us--each of us--and our choices about our future. At first, I had no idea if I wanted to join a union. But here's what I do know, that choice is mine. It wasn't my boss's and it wasn't my friend's. And that's why the Employee Free Choice Act is so important. It's about choice. It's about freedom. It's about each of us, and it's about our country."

Dignity--Trish Meuhlenkamp, cafeteria worker in North Platte

"My job lasts longer than 9 to 5. And my work is about more than a paycheck. It's about people, and it's about dignity. And my job isn't unique. Each of us works for more than our title suggests. We choose our work, and we earn our dignity. The Employee Free Choice Act is not about unions or employers, it's not about secret ballots or card check. It's about giving each of us the dignity of a choice ... it's about giving each of us the dignity we deserve."

Rights--Butch and Shirley McGinn, rancher in Anselmo and small business owner in Broken Bow

"You know, this country was built on several things--freedom being one of them. So what we don't get is why people are being fired for exercising that very freedom. If people want to join a union, seems to us that they should have that right. Instead, they are getting fired or bullied. Just doesn't seem right to us, telling people they can either have their rights or their jobs, but they can't have both. The Employee Free Choice Act would give that freedom back to the people to whom it belongs, each of us. It would also put meaningful penalties for anyone that breaks the law--whether it was a union or a business."

These are the stories of the Employee Free Choice Act. You might not see them on your TV, propped up by billions of dollars in corporate money, but you will find them in every corner of our state. Workers and small business owners, nurses and teachers, ranchers and ministers who understand what workplace democracy really means--it means having a free choice and gaining a voice. And that's exactly what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Nebraska needs leaders who stand up, not just placeholders who simply stand in. We need leaders who will tell us the truth, not just parrot talking points from outside groups. But we also need you. This bill will only be passed with your help in the grassroots.

Call Senator Johanns and Senator Nelson and tell them why you support the Employee Free Choice Act. Send them a postcard. And tell all your friends to visit http://www.changethatworks.net/NE to find out how you can get involved to help workers in our state. Together, we can make this change happen.

Union members across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more--or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Latino Union Workers Earn More & Have Better Benefits.  The most recent data suggest that even after controlling for differences between union and non- union workers --including such factors as age and education level -- unionization substantially improves the pay and benefits received by Latino workers. After controlling for workers' characteristics, the union wage premium for all Latino workers is 17.6 percent or about $2.60 per hour. The union advantage for Latino workers is even larger with respect to health insurance and pension coverage. Unionized Latino workers were about 26 percentage points more likely to have health insurance and about 27 percentage points more likely to have a pension than their non-union counterparts. [CEPR Report: Unions and Upward Mobility for Latino Workers, 9/08]

The NLRB Ruled Against a Fort Collins based dry-wall firm specifically on accusations it interfered with union organizing by Latino workers.  In 2000, the Denver Post reported, "Phase 2, a Fort Collins-based drywall and steel stud framing contractor has had an ongoing battle with the Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters over the firm's treatment of its Latino immigrant workers. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Phase 2 had interfered with workers attempting to join the union. The company was ordered to post information about the union on several job sites." [Denver Post, 12/3/00]

• Unionized Denver drywall workers earn an average of  $4.25 per hour than non-unionized drywall workers.  The Orlando Sentinel reported, "A seasoned union drywall worker in Denver earns $17.25 an hour, and receives benefits worth an additional $5 an hour, union leaders say. Nonunion drywall workers are typically paid as little as $13 an hour, and receive no benefits." [Orlando Sentinel, 1/22/06]

Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Workers at Laradon Hall Waited 18 Months for Their First Contract and Faced Continuous Intimidation. Roberta Ayala, a teacher's assistant a Laradon Hall in Denver, described how hard it was for she and her coworkers to get their first contract after voting to join a union. She wrote, "Eighty percent of us signed cards supporting the union. But the school refused to recognize our decision. We filed for an election and that's when management began harassing and intimidating us. They even fired several teachers' assistants--making our staffing problems even worse. They wanted to scare us. They wanted us to give up. But it didn't work--we won our election... Management continued their intimidation tactics even after we won our election. The facility experienced a 70 percent turnover in staff because of the campaign waged by management... Eighteen months after our election, we finally won our first contract. We finally won a voice in classroom decisions. But it shouldn't have been this hard to win improvements for our students." [SEIU, "Faces of the Employee Free Choice Act," accessed 5/19/09]

It Took Over a Year for DIA Train Workers to Get Their First Contract After Joining a Union. In 2000, the Denver Post reported, "The company that operates and maintains Denver International Airport's train system and a union that represents 40 of the firm's workers reached a contract settlement late Thursday afternoon, averting a threatened midnight strike. Workers represented by the International Union of Elevator Constructors were seeking their first contract with the train firm, Adtranz, after 13 months of bargaining. The new labor pact contains wage and benefit increases for the Adtranz workers, said Dale Coalmer, business manager for elevator constructors union Local 25." [Denver Post, 2/18/00]

Management of Exempla St. Joseph Hospital Delayed First Contract with Nurses For 18 Months, Waiting for the Workers to Give Up. In 2002, the Denver Business Journal reported, "Emergency department workers at Saint Joseph Hospital are cutting union ties after failing to reach a contract with the department's management. Eighteen months ago, about 60 workers at Exempla Healthcare's Saint Joseph Hospital became the first health care employees to unionize in Colorado in more than 20 years. The small group, however, couldn't strike a deal with Saint Joseph's outside emergency room management company, Maricor. 'We never should have organized a subcontractor of a hospital. ... They are not going to let the tail of the dog wag the dog,' said Ernest L. Duran Jr., president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, the union that represents the hospital workers. 'We didn't have the power. People think the negotiating process is this sophisticated, intellectual process. It's not. It's all about power.'" [Denver Business Journal, 2/22/02]

When Nurses at St. Anthony's Were Organizing a Union Vote, Management Brought in Outside Anti-Union Consultant to Scare Them Off. In 2003, the Denver Westword reported, "Three years ago the SEIU was involved in an effort to unionize nurses at St. Anthony's two area hospitals. St. Anthony hired Kansas City-based Management Science Associates, a firm that specializes in battling union drives in the health-care industry, and soon the nurses were deluged with anti-union propaganda and forced to attend meetings warning them about the dangers of forming a union. 'The only reason we were trying to organize was to have a voice,' says Bernie Patterson, a St. Anthony nurse who was active in the union drive. 'Our Catholic, non-profit hospital hired a consulting firm and spent millions to fight us. It was really ugly.' Patterson's group eventually had to withdraw its petition for an election because many of the nurses who originally supported the union were frightened away. 'Even the nurses who believed we needed a voice were losing their confidence,' she says." [Denver Westword, 6/12/03]

Union Members in Nebraska and Across the Country Earn Significantly More Than Non-Union Workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Nebraska were on average 13.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else being the same, Nebraska workers that join a union will earn 13.7 percent more--or $2.40 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for Nebraska's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

First Contract Negotiations At Millard Processing Services Didn't Even Start Until Nearly Three Years After Workers Joined a Union. In 1995, the Omaha World-Herald reported, "The NLRB has alleged that Millard Processing Services Inc., 13076 Renfro Circle, has refused to bargain with Local 271 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Workers at Millard Processing voted in August 1991 to be represented by the union, and the first contract talks started March 23, 1994. The local said it represents about 500 workers, most of whom are Hispanic." [Omaha World-Herald, 10/16/95]

• Management Agreed to Pay Back Wages Rather Than Face NLRB Hearing on Unfair Labor Practices. In October 1995, Millard Processing Services and the United Food and Commercial Workers union reached a settlement, leading to the cancellation of a planned NLRB hearing on union charges of unfair labor practices. "Among other things, the settlement calls for the company to pay thousands of dollars in back pay to at least 91 workers, with back pay to an additional 24 workers hinging on the outcome of an NLRB review... An administrative law judge was to have heard the complaints Monday, but the hearing was called off when MPS, without admitting it violated the law, agreed to: Restore an annual 30-cent-per-hour wage increase to at least 91 workers and give them back pay dating from July 18, 1994." [Omaha World-Herald, 10/21/95]


• Millard Processing Paid More Than $34,000 in Back Pay. In March 1996, the Omaha World-Herald reported, "Millard Processing Services Inc. is scheduled to pay $ 34,322 in back pay to 112 employees involved in a labor dispute, the National Labor Relations Board said Thursday. Leonard Bernstein, regional attorney at the board's office in Kansas City, Mo., said the amount is subject to some final adjustments or claims but otherwise would be carried out under an earlier board order. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 271 had sought the wages, alleging that the company halted normal pay increases in retaliation for workers supporting the union." [Omaha World-Herald, 3/14/96]

Union Officials Alleged 32 Labor Violations During Campaign at Nebraska Beef. In the summer of 2001, Nebraska Beef workers rejected union representation by a vote of 452 to 345, but an NLRB officer recommended that the full board order a new election. "The hearing officer, Francis A. Molenda of Tulsa, Okla., recommended that the full board void the Aug. 16 election, which was won by the company... In September, the union asked the labor relations board to order another election, saying that Nebraska Beef officials committed 41 violations of federal labor law. The number of objections, later reduced to 32, became the basis of six days of hearings by Molenda in October." [Omaha World-Herald, 1/3/02]

• Workers at Nebraska Beef Said They Were Afraid of Losing Their Jobs If They Supported a Union.During the course of the unionization drive at Nebraska Beef, the NLRB "issued a complaint against the company for allegedly firing seven workers" because they led a protest complaining of unsafe conditions. Worker Jose Juan Robles "said workers are 'yelled at and reminded that they are dispensable.' Many Nebraska Beef workers are 'kept from the restroom,' he said through an interpreter. 'And many times we are not sure if we are paid for the entire time we put in because we have no time clock, and we are at the mercy of what supervisors decide.'" [Lincoln Journal Star, 8/12/01]


• Union Officials Said Nebraska Beef Workers Earned Up to a Dollar Below the Prevailing Wage at Other Plants. In August 2001, the Lincoln Star Journal reported, "Union officials say the Nebraska Beef plant in a red and white industrial structure north of Omaha's L Street arterial between 35th and 36th streets operates below the norm in terms of wages and working conditions. They estimate the average production line and kill floor wage at $8.50 an hour, as much as a dollar below the prevailing wage at competing plants." [Lincoln Journal Star, 8/12/01]


• Alleged Worker Intimidation by Nebraska Beef Included Added Security By the Company and Increasing the Size of the Bargaining Unit To Lessen the Union's Chance of Success. Testifying in front of the NLRB judge, "Anselm McCrimon, a Nebraska Beef employee and union supporter, said the company parked four semitrailer trucks near the plant entrance. That action, the union said, restricted access to the plant and intimidated workers... The trucks had never been parked that way before, McCrimon said, and were removed two or three days after the election. Newly hired security guards also showed up on election day, McCrimon said, with one driving a car with flashing lights in the area. The union also contends that Nebraska Beef hired people before the election solely to increase the size of the bargaining unit to lessen the union's chances of success." [Omaha World Herald, 10/12/01]


• Four Years After the Contested Election, the NLRB Ruled In Favor of Workers and Ordered a New Election Held at Nebraska Beef. "On April 6, 2005, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered a new election at Nebraska Beef after citing the company for violating workers' rights in an August 2001 election, after UFCW had filed charges on behalf of the workers. The NLRB upheld a hearing officer's findings that the company used a broad range of intimidation tactics to deny workers a voice on the job in the 2001 election." The second vote never occurred. [UFCW Press Release, 5/18/05; Lincoln Journal Star, 12/29/08]

Union members in California and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers.

Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in California were on average 12.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, California workers that join a union will earn 12.7 percent more--or $2.87 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for California's Economy, 2/18/09]

Latino Union Workers Earn More & Have Better Benefits. The most recent data suggest that even after controlling for differences between union and non- union workers --including such factors as age and education level -- unionization substantially improves the pay and benefits received by Latino workers. After controlling for workers' characteristics, the union wage premium for all Latino workers is 17.6 percent or about $2.60 per hour. The union advantage for Latino workers is even larger with respect to health insurance and pension coverage. Unionized Latino workers were about 26 percentage points more likely to have health insurance and about 27 percentage points more likely to have a pension than their non-union counterparts. [CEPR Report: Unions and Upward Mobility for Latino Workers, 9/08]

• The Janitors for Justice campaign in California produced wage increases of 22 to 26 percent for mostly Latino workers. In April 2000, "some 8,500 janitors represented by the SEIU won raises of 22 percent to 26 percent after a highly publicized three-week strike." The janitors were "mostly immigrant Latinos making less than $ 7 per hour." [The Daily News of Los Angeles, 11/5/00]

This salary increase affected not just the workers, but also had a dramatic affect on families. In June 2000, Harold Meyerson editorialized on what a wage increase of about 26 percent, spread over 3 years, would mean for the workers: "The janitors...will see their hourly pay rise from just under $8 to just over $10. (At that rate, it's possible that one parent in a two-working-parent family could afford to work just one job -- and actually get some time with his or her kids.)" [The American Prospect, 6/19/00]

Security guards in California received a 40% increase in salary and benefits after unionizing. In 2008, the security guards and SEIU "sought to bring the guards' hourly pay and benefits in line with those of janitors represented by the SEIU. Currently, janitors working in the same buildings and for the same management companies make up to $6 per hour more than guards -- who average around $8.50 per hour with no health insurance, paid vacation or other benefits...The deal results in a 40% increase in overall salary and benefits, according to Faith Culbreath, local head of the security officers' branch of the Service Employees International Union." [Los Angeles Times, 1/21/08]

The majority of the security guards were black men, and an increase in their salaries increased the amount of money going back into the black community. Faith Culbreath also provided the statistic that "Up to 70% of local private security jobs are filled by black men, and...the new deal would bring an estimated $50 million more per year in wages and benefits, "the vast majority of that going into the black community." [Los Angeles Times, 1/21/08]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

California Employers Stall Before Giving Workers a First Contract
Workers at Alan Ritchey Inc. Waited More Than Two Years to Get Their First Contract. In 2002, the Contra Costa Times reported, "Natasha Lyles said she's still waiting for a contract from Alan Ritchey Inc., more than two years after she and colleagues at the company's Richmond plant voted to unionize by a two-to-one margin. A contract and a little respect. 'They don't treat us like humans,' Lyles said. 'They don't talk to us with respect.'" In July 2002, the Richmond City Council passed a resolution calling on the company to "negotiate an agreement without further delay." "The workers' frustrations were largely validated by a decision handed down in April by an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board. In his decision, Judge Burton Litvack found that the company engaged in unfair labor practices and failed to negotiate in good faith with the union. He also said that the company had unlawfully fired 16 employees, and he ordered the company to offer them their jobs back and to pay back wages with interest." Workers initially voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in April 2000. [Contra Costa Times, 7/14/02; West County Times, 4/15/00]

Management of Enloe Medical Center Refused to Negotiate First Contract For Nearly Three Years After Workers Voted to Join a Union. Employees at Enloe Medical Center "first voted to form a union with United Healthcare Workers in April 2004, but the prior hospital administration challenged the election results. After every legal challenge was rejected, Enloe management finally agreed to negotiations in early 2007." The first collective bargaining agreement for the service workers at Enloe Medical Center was finally ratified on December 9, 2008. [Health Insurance Week, 12/21/08; Enloe Medical Center Press Release, 12/9/08]

More Than a Year After Voting to Unionize, Rite Aid Workers Said Management Refuses to Even Discuss Key Items Like Pay Scales. In December 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported, "Carlos Rubio, a Rite Aid warehouse worker in Palmdale, said negotiations with his employer over a first contract have dragged on since he and his co-workers voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in March. 'There are 35 articles on the table. We've agreed to four of them,' Rubio said. Rite Aid has agreed to minor provisions, such as what happens if an employee is called into military service, he said, but has not even begun to talk about pay scales and other more meaningful issues." In March 2009, union officials still argued that management was trying to "run out the clock" and refusing to work out a contract. [Los Angeles Times, 12/27/08; Michigan Chronicle, 3/11/09-3/17/09]

Inland Valley Medical Center Refused Good-Faith First Contract Negotiations for Two Years, Hoping the Delay Would Make the Nurses Give Up on the Union. In September 2008, the Press Enterprise reported, "Leaders of the California Nurses Association said, and a federal judge agreed, that a pattern of threats, intimidation and stalling happened at Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar, where registered nurses voted to unionize in 2004. Initially the hospital attempted to hold up the vote by asking it to include nurses in a hospital in Murrieta owned by the same corporation, King of Prussia, Pa.-based Universal Health Services Inc. The NLRB disagreed and ordered the election to go forward. Nurses ratified the union in May 2004, but almost two years passed with no contract and nurses, with nothing to show for their union membership, voted to decertify CNA." One year later, a judge tossed out the decertification election "after agreeing with union supporters who filed charges accusing hospital officials and outside consultants of surveillance, harassment and intimidation during the weeks leading up to that election," but CNA decided not to continue the fight, arguing that they were protecting nurses from the "outrageous anti-union campaign." [The Press Enterprise, 9/1/08, 8/23/08]

Workers at TXI Riverside Cement Voted to Join a Union in 2005, and Still Didn't Have a Contract At Least Three Years Later. In August 2007, the Press Enterprise reported, "The union representing workers at TXI Riverside Cement plans to mark the holiday weekend with what it calls an 'Angry Labor Day' rally Saturday, protesting the lack of a contract nearly two years after employees voted to unionize. About 80 workers at the plant at 1500 Rubidoux Blvd. voted in August 2005 to join United Steelworkers Local 12-48. But after nearly 30 meetings between the union and management, no contract has been reached... The union contends TXI is seeking to delay negotiations on a first contract in an effort to undermine workers' support for the union. For example, union leaders say negotiators met 26 times in the year after the union vote before TXI made its first complete economic proposal." As of April 2008, the San Bernardino County Sun reported that there was still no contract at the Rubidoux plant. [The Press Enterprise, 8/31/07; San Bernardino County Sun, 4/30/08]

Caregivers at Stockton Retirement Home Voted to Join a Union In 2005, But Management Stalled on a First Contract for Years. In April 2008, The National Labor Relations Board "recommended a new election be held at the O'Connor Woods retirement home in Stockton, after finding management violated federal law by threatening and misleading workers in the days prior to a previous union election in November... Workers at O'Connor Woods were pleased with the decision. Caregivers first voted to become members of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West in 2005, but years of stalling tactics by management prevented them from winning a first contract." [SEIU Press Release, 4/16/08]

Nurses at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center Waited Years For Their First Contract. In September 2007, the San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported, "Two area hospitals--Antelope Valley Hospital and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center--have reached agreements with Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West." Nurses initially voted to join the union in September 2002, but the results were challenged. The NLRB subsequently certified the union at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in 2003. [San Fernando Valley Business Journal, 9/17/07; Los Angeles Times, 10/17/02, 6/4/03]

After an Initial Struggle to Join a Union, Nurses at Antelope Valley Hospital Had to Wait More than a Year to Get a Contract. In September 2007, the San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported, "Two area hospitals--Antelope Valley Hospital and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center--have reached agreements with Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West. For Antelope Valley Hospital, settling on a contract marks the end of a five-year struggle." According to the Daily News of Los Angeles, "Negotiations started in July 2006 between the hospital and Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West. In February 2006, the union won the right to represent about 1,200 eligible licensed vocational nurses, technicians, food service workers, clerical staffers and other support-service workers." The union had worked for three years just to get the initial vote to unionize. [San Fernando Valley Business Journal, 9/17/07; Daily News of Los Angeles, 1/13/07, 2/23/06]

Ongoing Struggle for Unionization: The Santa Barbara News-Press
The Santa Barbara News-Press Votes to Unionize, but Management questions the Legitimacy of the Vote The Santa Barbara News-Press has been involved in a 3-year controversy over the unionization of its workers. Wendy McCaw purchased the Santa Barbara News-Press in 2000, and the paper has been "embroiled in controversy since July 2006, when several top editors quit, saying publisher Wendy McCaw meddled with news coverage. The paper countered that the former employees had let their personal opinions influence news decisions." [AP, 8/18/07]

Employees overwhelmingly voted to join a union in September 2006. The newsroom employees voted to form a union in September 2006 but "have been fighting with the newspaper since then over the legitimacy of the vote, which has been certified by the NLRB." [AP, 1/27/09]

• The NLRB certified the September 2006 union election and unanimously rejected arguments made by newspaper management regarding unfair organizing tactics. After the election was disputed by newspaper management, "The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday unanimously rejected arguments made by newspaper management that unfair organizing tactics were used during a September election in which newsroom employees voted 33-6 in favor of joining the Graphics Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The ruling means the union can bargain with the newspaper." [AP, 8/18/07]

This decision meant that the newspaper must negotiate with the union. Many of the reporters who voted to unionize had since left the paper, either voluntarily or were terminated. The newspaper appealed the election: "Despite the exodus, the newspaper must negotiate with the union, said NLRB spokesman Tony Bisceglia. However, the paper can ask for decertification in a year if a deal isn't reached and the current employees don't want to be represented by a union, Bisceglia said." [AP, 8/18/07]

Santa Barbara News-Press Illegally Fired Reporters

In addition to the appeal over the certification of the NLRB election, there was also an ongoing dispute over the firing of eight reporters. The NLRB's decision to certify the union elections at the Free-Press came "amid charges by the NLRB that the newspaper improperly fired eight reporters, six of whom hung a sign over a highway overpass earlier this year urging passers-by to cancel their subscriptions." [AP, 8/18/07]

• When the newspaper would not agree to settle the case against the reporters and re-hire them, the NLRB issued a complaint against the newspaper charging unfair labor practices. "The National Labor Relations Board served a complaint to the News-Press on Wednesday to begin the process of presenting its case against the newspaper. At issue is the paper's imposition of gag orders, which impeded employees' rights to communicate with each other and the public, and the Oct. 27 firing of senior writer and union supporter Melinda Burns, a 21-year News-Press veteran....The NLRB tried to settle the case with the News-Press, said Byron B. Kohn, acting regional director of the board. Resolution would require immediate reinstatement of Burns and a formal notice to the employees that the News-Press would not engage in similar conduct in the future, he said. When the paper didn't agree to settle, the NLRB issued the complaint and charged the News-Press with unfair labor practices. The board investigated the case by taking sworn affidavits from witnesses." [Ventura County Star, 12/29/06]

A judge ruled that the Santa Barbara News-Press "committed flagrant violations of federal labor laws when it fired eight journalists for engaging in union activities." Although managers testified that Melinda Burns and other reporters were fired for writing biased stories and disloyalty to the company, a judge "ruled that all eight were illegally fired for engaging in union activity. He also ruled that Davison and three colleagues were given poor performance reviews and denied bonuses for the same reason, and that Starshine Roshell's column was dropped because she supported the union." The judge ordered that the paper rehire the former employees. [Los Angeles Times, 1/1/08]

Despite an NLRB judge's finding that the employees were unlawfully fired, a federal judge refused to reinstate them. Following an appeal of the NLRB decision that the reporters were fired illegally, "A federal judge has denied a request by the National Labor Relations Board to reinstate eight workers fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press, according to a ruling made public Wednesday. The board claimed the workers were wrongfully terminated for union activity and other reasons. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said in his ruling that an injunction calling for the workers' reinstatement would prevent the paper from exercising what it's asserting as its First Amendment right to combat union efforts to limit its exercise of editorial discretion." [AP, 5/28/08]

Santa Barbara Free-Press Continues to Delay Bargaining and Bring Unsuccessful Suits Against Employees

In a suit against the Teamsters Union, the newspaper unsuccessfully claimed the union interfered with sales. In the conclusion of the first of several lawsuits brought by newspaper management against the union and employees, the result was that "A federal agency has dismissed a claim brought by the Santa Barbara News-Press against an employees union, concluding the newspaper failed to provide sufficient evidence that the union tried to interfere with newspaper sales. In an April 3 ruling, the National Labor Relations Board rejected arguments by newspaper management that the Graphics Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters coerced or threatened employees and others to hurt sales of the paper at the Santa Barbara Farmers Market. The newspaper claimed Teamsters members impeded pedestrians at the market from buying the newspaper." [AP, 4/8/08]

The NLRB ruled that union representatives did nothing wrong when they organized an advertising boycott of the newspaper. Newspaper management also sued union representatives for organizing an advertising boycott of the Santa Barbara News-Press, but the NLRB ruled that the union representatives "did nothing wrong when they called for an advertising boycott of the Santa Barbara News-Press as part of an ongoing labor dispute. Lawyers for the newspaper had accused union officials of failing to bargain in good faith. In a letter dated Jan. 23, the National Labor Relations Board said it found no evidence the union had violated any labor law when it sought to discourage businesses from advertising in the newspaper." [AP, 1/27/09]

In today's Washington Post, political columnist Harold Meyerson explains the importance of first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the second main plank of the legislation.

"But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

"Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose."

It's ironic that businesses rely on arbitration all the time as a means of resolving differences; in this regard, arbitration is a tool for business success. Yet when it comes to giving workers recourse to an arbitrator as a means of getting a first contract between their newly-formed union and the employer, big business is suddenly opposed to arbitration. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger was interviewed by the Brennan Center for Justice while attending "The Next Democracy" conference at the White Oak Conservancy Center in Florida. "When workers had a voice on the job, when unionization was high and one in three workers had a union, not only was it good for those workers, it lifted up everybody," said Burger in the interview. "It raised the standards across America in terms of wages, healthcare, retirement security and the ability to give our kids a better life."

Watch Anna as she discusses organized labor's role in democracy, as well as the Bush legacy.

To help give discrimination the "one two" punch, Stonewall Democrats and Pride At Work recently launched SharedAgenda.org to build support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Join this campaign by submitting a video that explains to Americans why we need to quickly pass both pieces of pro-equality legislation. In four minutes or less, tell your audience why the Employee Free Choice Act and being a part of a labor union is important to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

Entry rules for video submissions and how to enter the SharedAgenda.org video contest here. All entries must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2009 and the first place winner will get you a $400 UNITED Airlines gift certificate.

> Read guest commentary: "Working while gay should not be a fire-able offense." More about how the Employee Free Choice Act & unionization affects the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community after the jump.

In Washington, politicians make a business out of saying one thing and then doing another. Well, that's not how we do things in Nebraska. Out here, our word is our bond.

When he was running for national office, Senator Johanns gave Nebraska's working families his word. He said that he would fight for working families, he told us that he would honor the support that we give to our communities every day. And even now, whenever he's back in state, he's still bound to talk a good game. Most recently, he was praising the union training programs that have done so much to grow our local economy.

So why is it that whenever he's back in Washington, Senator Johanns marches in lockstep with big business CEOs that try to demonize Nebraska workers and the unions they form?

Johanns has been steadfast in opposing workers' rights to determine how to best form a union for themselves. In opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, he has grossly misrepresented both its content and intent - suggesting that it will take away worker's rights to a secret ballot, when in fact it will do nothing of the sort. Rather, the Employee Free Choice Act will give workers the freedom to choose how to form a union, including whether to pursue a ballot election, without fear of losing their job.

Worse yet, Johanns has carried water for groups that are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking the very organizations who's efforts he's praised - the Nebraska workers and their unions who are fighting to gain a voice in their workplace and providing the very training programs Johanns praised last week.

Well, Senator, this is one group that's going to make their voices heard. Join us today, as workers from all over the state call on Mike Johanns to stop the lies and the double-talk. Join us in telling Johanns that our working families deserve more than just words: they deserve a real voice in their workplace. They deserve the Employee Free Choice Act.

For more information on how you can get involved, visit www.changethatworks.net/ne, and while you are there, sign-up for our Union Freedom Ride on May 31st.

In solidarity,

Jim Sheard
President, Change to Win Nebraska

You probably saw the big news earlier this week. In case you didn't, here it is.

Senator Arlen Specter joined hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians who have left the Republican Party and announced that he would become a Democrat. In the past, he's risen above above partisanship to support working people - and we've worked with him on many important issues.

Arlen Specter needs to hear from you now. Pennsylvania's working families need his support on the Employee Free Choice Act and Health Care Reform. I'm going to one of his offices tomorrow with some of our SEIU members and we'll make sure he hears from you.

Click here to write a note to Senator Specter about why we need him to support the Employee Free Choice Act and healthcare reform. We'll make sure he gets it tomorrow.

Even though Senator Specter is now a Democrat, we expect him to support Pennsylvania's working families in the same way he has throughout his career as a Republican. The issues that face working people in Pennsylvania have not changed, and the support we need from our representatives in Congress hasn't changed, either.

Senator Specter will now be able to vote his conscience on the important issues. He did so in voting for President Obama's economic stimulus program, and we hope he'll do so on other critical issues facing our country: reforming our broken healthcare system and giving employees the free choice to join unions.

Senator Specter needs to hear from you by tomorrow. Tell him that Pennsylvanians need him to support the Employee Free Choice Act and healthcare reform.

As Senator Specter knows, putting Pennsylvania's families ahead of partisanship is a priority. Thanks for taking the time to write to him. We'll let you know how our delivery goes next week.

"Unions and Upward Mobility for Service-Sector Employees," a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shows that nationally, unionization raises service workers' pay 10.1 percent (about $2.00 per hour), compared to non-union service workers, and increases the likelihood that the worker will have health insurance and a pension. Service sector jobs include healthcare and food service workers, housekeepers, janitors and childcare providers.

The vast majority of jobs in this country are now in the service sector, and data from this study demonstrates that service sector workers reap benefits as much from unionization as workers in manufacturing do. In Pennsylvania, for example, more than 77 percent of the workforce is in service-sector jobs, and the unionization rate in those jobs is 14.7 percent. The average wage for unionized workers in the service sector in PA is $19.31, while for non-union members it is $14.27.

The impact of unions in low-wage occupations was even more significant. For workers in the 15 lowest-paying occupations, union membership raised wages by 15.5 percent. The likelihood of having health insurance increased by about 26 percentage points, and the likelihood of having an employer-sponsored pension increased by roughly 23 percentage points.

"Unions give the biggest boost to workers in low-paying occupations because these are the workers that have the least bargaining power in the labor market," said John Schmitt, a Senior Economist at CEPR. "Unionization can turn what would otherwise be low-paying jobs with no benefits into middle-class jobs."

Read the full study here.

The Center for American Progress Report (CAP) is out, and the results are definitive: labor unions are a crucial part of fixing our economy.

The state-by-state study reports that even a five percent national increase in unionization rates would pump more than $25 billion into the national economy, $77 million of which would go directly to Maine.

As the study reports, economic recovery starts not with big government bailouts, but with the purchasing power of average Americans. 70% of our nation's economy comes from consumer activity, but with income for the median working age household falling by $2000 between 2000 and 2007, so did the accompanying consumer activity. And an economy built on debt-driven consumption is unsustainable, as we can clearly see today.

Unions have been responsible for the creation of the middle class, and pioneered such benefits as health care, pensions, even the weekend. As Penni Therault, owner of Lots of Tots Child Care and President of Kids First, MSEA-SEIU, says, "We need to lift up as many workers as possible into the middle class...When workers are doing well, our economy does well. And when our economy is doing well, there is more funding to maintain good public jobs and quality public services."

The facts from the CAP report speak for themselves:

Unions Help Workers Achieve Higher Wages

• Between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers wages in Maine were 8.6 percent higher than similarly employed workers not a member of a union


• Maine workers that join a union will earn $1.54 more per hour than their identical non-union counterparts

Workers Wage Growth Lags as Productivity Increases

• If Maine's workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor produc¬tivity between 1980 and 2008, average wages would be $23.27 per hour - 29.60 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.

Unionization Rewards Workers for Productivity Growth

• If the rates of unionization in Maine were the same today as they were in 1983, new union workers in Maine would earn an estimated $144 million more in wages per year.


• If 5 percent more Maine's workers were union members, $77 million would be pumped into the state's economy.


• Non-union workers would also benefit, as employers would be likely to raise wages to match those of workers in a union.

Union employers are significantly more likely to provide employee benefits:

• Nationwide, union workers are 28.2 percent more likely to have employer-provided health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions than similar workers who are non-union.

Three out of five workers would join a union if they could (according to the Peter Hart Research Associates Poll). However, workers attempting to unionize currently face a hostile legal environment, with intimidation by aggressive anti-union employers the norm.

The Employee Free Choice Act would protect workers by ensuring a fair, majority sign up, penalizing employers who break unionization contract rules, and ensuring mediation to thwart bad-faith bargaining, all without big government spending. Boosting workers wages and benefits would provide a much-needed jolt to Maine's economy.

Let's improve our economy the American way, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act in support of unions.

When I started working in nursing homes as a certified nursing assistant, I was excited that I would be doing something I love -- spending quality time with seniors and providing them with the care they need to live their final years with dignity. Unfortunately, that's not how I can describe what I do when I go to work at HCR Manor Care- Easton. I'm constantly running between rooms trying to keep up with my residents' needs, and there are some days when I just can't give them the care that I know they deserve.

Eventually, I got fed up with the short staffing, high turnover and low pay so I started talking to my co-workers about forming a union. I thought that if we were united, we would finally have a voice in the decisions that affected us and our residents. You would think that in America, workers are free to decide for themselves about forming a union; but I can tell you, it's anything but a free choice.

Following several decades of decline, the first increase in union membership in a quarter of a century was recorded in 2007, with women accounting for almost two-thirds of new union members. Women make up roughly 45 percent of union members--and by 2020, women will be the majority of the unionized workforce.

Millions of female workers are getting the squeeze in today's economy. Even as women break the glass ceiling in business and politics, they still earn on average, 78 cents to every dollar earned by men--and unions are a big part of the solution. Women have a great deal to gain from unionization, with union victories working to pave the way for workers to bargain for affordable family health care, fair wages, improved working conditions, and a better life for their families. Did you know that...

• Unionization raises the probability of a woman having a pension (24.7 percent) and having employer-provided health insurance (19 percent)
  
• Joining a union raises the amount women workers earn by 11.2 percent more than their non-union peers.
  
• Among women workers in the 15 lowest-paying occupations, the benefits are even greater, with female union members earning 14 percent more than those workers who were not in unions.

"We need women in leadership in all levels in our country - in our unions, in our communities, in the social justice movement and in our government, to really make a difference for working families in our country and around our world," says SEIU's Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.

Watch SEIU's video tribute to Women's History Month here:

The Employee Free Choice Act could make an even greater difference in the lives of women. "What EFCA means is that women workers and particularly women workers of color, who are of the worst economic situation in this country, can finally move out of the worst jobs and the worst working conditions and into the kind of jobs which would allow them to support a family, buy a home, send their kids to college," says Cornell labor specialist Kate Bronfenbrenner.

Even a modest increase in Nebraska's union membership could pump $176 million back into working families' pockets, finds a new report from the Center for American Progress.

The report, which examines the effect of union membership on state economies, finds that decreased union membership has encouraged a sharp growth in income inequality and helped contribute to the current economic crisis. In Nebraska, union workers earn an average of 13.7% more than their non-union counterparts - increased wages that result in increased spending, increased spending that results in more sales and more services and more jobs and ultimately strengthens the state's economy as a whole.

In the first independent poll conducted this year on the issue, Americans are firmly and overwhelmingly in support of not only the Employee Free Choice Act, but of workers' rights and of labor in general.

Here's what Gallup found:

• 53% support "a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."
• 55% say it's "important" for Congress to pass "a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."

What does this mean, besides the fact that Americans stand firmly behind the Employee Free Choice Act? It also shows that despite a multi-million dollar campaign by corporate interests to lie about the bill and smear working people, the public wants the Employee Free Choice Act. We found the same to be true when the same corporate interests tried and failed to influence the 2008 election.

The fact that only 3% of those surveyed had no opinion on the issue shows that there aren't many people out there to convince, one way or the other. Americans simply like unions, and that view is concrete.

The poll also showed that more people need to hear more about the Employee Free Choice Act. Please take a minute to tell your friends and family about our campaign.

The 14-point majority also becomes even more impressive with a quick look at the phrasing of Gallup's questions. Gallup used a less-than-neutral phrase, "labor unions to organize workers," in its survey - with no further elaboration on the benefits of unions or the Employee Free Choice Act. If anything, this shows that our opposition's demonization of "big bad labor unions" has no effect whatsoever.

It'll be interesting to see how these front groups try to dismiss or spin these Gallup numbers. The similarity in numbers between responses to both questions shows that there's a strong internal validity to this poll.

But given the fact that our opposition has had no prior qualms in merely making stuff up, we're pretty excited to see what kind of imaginative spin they'll come up with.

But while Americans do know what unions can do to improve their lives, the poll also showed that 39% of Americans don't know much about the Employee Free Choice Act. Be sure to take a moment to tell your friends about Free Choice and this new Gallup poll.

You can read Gallup's write-up on this poll here, or watch editor-in-chief Dr. Frank Newport discuss the poll's findings:

"Although most workers would like to join a union, very few ever get the chance to vote. In fact, employers have been stifling the efforts of workers to lawfully organize a union through elections," writes Jaime Contreras, Capital Area Director of SEIU Local 32BJ, in a Friday op-ed in Washington Hispanic. "Consequently, less than 100,000 joined a union through secret ballot election last year." "The Employee Free Choice Act would provide workers, once again, with a fair shot at joining a union. What they choose to do is their decision, just as it should be." Read the full op-ed.

(Note: Translated from Spanish by Eugenio Villasante, 32BJ)

The corporate misinformation campaign is already running strong--spreading lies and distortions about the Employee Free Choice Act. One blatant mischaracterization suggests that this common sense proposal is somehow a "radical" change to federal labor law. In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act reflects long-standing American principles of balance, choice and fairness in the workplace and restores protections for workers that have been eroded over time.

Here's an update about the legislation (below), courtesy of Jon Youngdahl, SEIU Political Director, Change that Works Campaign.

P.S. Know someone else who should receive our updates on the Employee Free Choice Act? Tell your colleagues to sign up for these updates on this page: http://freechoice.seiu.org/page/s/freechoiceupdate

---