You may have heard about the restraining order that CNA got against SEIU.  SEIU staff and members must stay at least 100 yards away from CNA staff, for fear of harassment.

Well, there are many of us who are NOT covered by the restraining order (ie, are not SEIU staff or members) who would LOVE to harass visit with CNA staff.

We should, in an orderly manner, develop a process for a "CNA harassment attention swap."  SEIU staffers and members can post the names (and relevant contact information) of CNA staffers who should be visited, and those of us untouched by the restraining order can go and do some visiting.

Ah.... I kid, of course.  I would never advocate the harassment of the good folks at CNA headquarters at 2000 Franklin Street in Oakland, or any of the other offices around California.  I certainly wouldn't call them (at 510-273-2200) and ask if their refrigerator is running, if they have Prince Albert in a can, or how on god's earth they sleep at night.

Finally, the movement to restore our rights at work is seeing some success!  No longer will employers claim that our rights end at the factory gates-- the brave men and women of the Florida legislature are taking a stand. 

The battle lines are not surprising:  a labor leader notes that "This is a victory for everyone, because it sends the message that businesses can't just carve out islands and tell you what your rights are."

A rep from the Florida Chamber of Commerce expresses disappointment, but explains that the state Senate can still fix things if it recognizes the importance of property rights.

So should Florida workers get ready to start exercising these rights?  Warm up the larynx for some free speech?  Prepare for some free assembly?  Uh, nope.  Those rights still don't apply in any meaningful way.  So which amendment are we talking about then?  The second, of course! 

Yes, workers in Florida are well on their way to being able to bring guns to work. 

Here's the piece from the Miami Herald.

Some folks may remember the case of the Chinese Daily News.  Workers at the California offices of this newspaper alleged back in 2004 that they were forced to work 12-hour days without breaks or overtime.  The company forced them to keep bogus accounts of their hours.  The company was able to get away with this for as long as it had because, as is so often the case, they used mostly immigrant labor.

One worker explained: "They took advantage of us because they knew we were very scared.  In the end we had no choice but to litigate."

And they did, making the case a bit of a cause celebre among labor lefties.  And late last week, a federal court ordered the company to pay over $5 million in damages, penalties and interest.  Justice served (albeit justice delayed), right?

Well, part of the U.S. District Judge Marshall's order caught my eye.  Form the account in the LATimes (emphasis mine):

"Marshall, in her ruling, rejected the workers' request for an order prohibiting the paper from violating labor laws in the future."

This is the state of labor law in this country.  Workers have to ask judges to remind companies to simply follow the law.  And judges -- even those who recognize egregious behavior among those companies -- will not do it.

Yeah, EFCA is a good start.  But from there we keep on going...


Meanwhile, congrats to the workers over at the Chinese Daily News!

Already today, there has been much ink spilled over The Rant.  I won't belabor it, except to remind folks of some context.  This comes from Tom "vengence, pure and complete" Buffenbarger (sorry, video no longer available on IAM site).  This is the same guy who threatened to bolt the AFL because some unions were spending too damn much time worrying "about immigrants and a whole array of things except for those in labor movement."

I know we have a lot of ineffectual labor leaders out there, but I'll take ineffectual any day over a straight-up nut job like this guy.

Even Hillary supporters decided this was too much, and they booed him off the stage.

Now when will IAM members boo(t) him out of office?

Here is a new David Moberg piece on labor's role in the current elections, with (deserved) special attention to the role of UNITE HERE's Local 226 in Las Vegas.  Enjoy.

It appears, based on new BLS data, that for the first time in 25 years, the # of workers -- and the percent union density -- has ticked up!

200,000 new union members in California in 2007?  Where did they come from?  What major campaigns came to fruition last year?  4,000 security guards with SEIU in LA.  What about the other 196,000?  Is this real or is this some statistical weirdness?

As this article points out, three of seven Change to Win unions have now endorsed: Carpenters (Edwards), UNITE HERE (Obama) and UFW (Clinton).  As CTW requires a two-thirds vote (with each union seeming to have one vote), this would seem to mean that CTW will not be endorsing in the primaries.

Then again, the article also implies that the UFW has 27,000 members, so who knows what's accurate.  (The LATimes article digs slightly deeper at that number-- see the end of the piece.)

"Si se pueda" indeed.

We all know that promptly after SEIU left the AFL-CIO, CNA joined the AFL-CIO.  OK, there are two healthcare unions now in two different federations.  How do we keep it all straight?  After the jump, a helpful guide from an insider.

Gosh, the story this week out of Nevada was how "both" candidates want to show how pro-labor they are.  And it looks like they are roughly the same, labor-wise: they both patronized a steakhouse at the Palms, one of only two major non-union hotel-casinos in Las Vegas to have an ongoing dispute with the Culinary Union (the other being the Venetian).  (An ongoing contract fight at the Tropicana is also significant, though of a different sort.)

Meanwhile, the one truly reliable pro-labor candidate in the race gets 4%.

I'd love to hear the Culinary's D Taylor & Pilar spin this one.


http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/normclarke/vegas_update/13922037.html?normBN=true


Update:
Here's an article from the Las Vegas Sun analyzing (what is billed as) the Culinary defeat:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/20/m-culinary/