Maine LD 123: An Act to Establish a Labor Center Within the University of Maine System

Representative John Tuttle has introduced a bill in the Maine Legislature calling for the creation of a Labor Center at the University of Southern Maine. This proposed legislation has the potential to begin to address the longstanding inadequacy of our education system in teaching about the history of organized labor and issues affecting working people in our country. The bill is co-sponsored by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, Majority Leader of the House, Chairs of the Education, Labor and Appropriations Committees along with other supporters.

A public hearing was held on Wednesday, March 14 before the Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs. Public comment in favor of the legislation was led off by USM Economics Professor Michael Hillard, one of the driving forces of this legislation. Hillard was followed by Jeremy Lestage, a Labor Studies Minor graduate from USM. Also speaking in favor were representatives from a broad range of the organized labor community: Ed Gorham of the Maine AFL-CIO, Peter Kellman of the Southern Maine Labor Council, Timothy Belcher of the SEIU, Chris Galgay of the Maine Education Association, and James Carson of the Teamsters Union.

Draft Prospectus for the proposed Center for Labor and Working Class Studies at the University of Southern Maine

The proposed center will offer labor education and policy development for students and community organizations. Within the university, the Center will support curricular development, adding to courses offered already in support of the Labor Studies minor, and will eventually offer a major and master’s program in Labor and Working Class studies if student interest warrants. It will work to further integrate labor-oriented curriculum across disciplines, and to broaden the types of courses offered to encompass a wider group within the student body (e.g. through the development of introductory labor courses and course clusters that serve the new general education curriculum). Career opportunities and development will be sought through internships and service learning. For both the university and southern Maine communities, it will offer regular educational programs – conferences, symposia, speakers, and films – that address issues of concern to organized labor and working people generally.

The proposed center will also work to deepen on-going working relationships between USM faculty and the southern Maine labor community, principally though not exclusively with the Southern Maine Labor Council-AFL-CIO. Jointly organized educational programs (outlined above), along with trainings, workshops, and policy seminars that deal with the history of, and present developments in, issues vital to work people – such as workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, labor law and workers’ rights, discrimination, quality of work life, livable wages, and the like – will be a primary goal of the Center, and will be the main route for deepening collaboration between the University and the southern Maine labor community.

We anticipate that these programs would include a scholarly research component, and would support publication of positions paper, policy analyses, and scholarly narratives about past and current working class history and issues. This collaboration may be further expanded to include the pursuit of grants and funding for joint labor-community projects (e.g. a labor history archive at USM).

To achieve these goals, the proposed Center will have one full-time staff person, recommended by the Southern Maine Labor Council and the Maine AFL-CIO, and hired by the University. The faculty will appoint a half-time faculty person from the group of faculty currently teaching labor studies courses to serve as faculty director. Funding for this position will primarily go to defray the costs of hiring replacements for the director in the faculty’s home department, though these funds may also be used for the purposes of individual faculty course releases. A half-time administrative assistant will also be hired to support the program.

The faculty director and full-time staff person will work jointly, and in collaboration with a board comprised of USM faculty, staff, and members appointed by the Southern Maine Labor Council, the Maine AFL-CIO, to develop and deliver the programming and curricular development outlined above. The staff person will be primarily responsible for overseeing the development and presentation of programming and related labor “extension” activities, including non-credit training and policy seminars, and for serving as a link between the Center and the southern Maine labor community. The faculty director will be primarily responsible for curricular development and for serving as a link to University faculty, departments, and academic administration.

Fusion or “Open Ballot” Voting Legislation Being Considered in Maine

Fusion Voting, also known as “Open Ballot Voting,” would allow more than one party to endorse the same candidate. The number of votes that a candidate received from each party would be tallied and the total would be his or her final vote count. Voters are given the freedom to support their preferred candidate on the line of any party that has endorsed them. This allows political parties other than the Democrats or the Republicans to play a significant role in the election process—more significant than simply acting as “spoilers” by drawing votes away from the major political parties.

For example, here’s how Fusion or “Open Ballot” voting would work in this race:

Bill Jones is running on the “Major Party A” ticket and gets 48% of the vote.

John Smith is running on the “Major Party B” ticket and gets 49% of the vote.

Bill Jones is also running on the “Small Party” ticket and gets 3% of the vote.

Bill Jones wins the election with a total of 51% of the vote.

State Representative Hannah Pingree of North Haven has introduced legislation that would allow Fusion or Open Ballot Voting in Maine. The Executive Board of IBEW Local 1837, the Maine AFL-CIO, and many other labor organizations have endorsed this significant move toward election reform. (New Hampshire is not considering Fusion Voting legislation at this time.) If enacted in Maine, we would join only seven other states that permit the practice.

This was not always the case. Fusion Voting was legal throughout the United States until the turn of the 20th Century. At that time the two major political parties moved to consolidate their political power by successfully promoting legislation in the state legislatures that would either directly or indirectly prohibit Fusion Voting. Prior to the change, there were a healthy variety of other political parties that helped define the electoral landscape. Populists and parties representing farmers, artisans, and other groups never were able to gain a majority of votes on their own, but in Fusion with the major political parties, they were able to play an important role in the electoral process and have to give them a voice in their state governments.

One of the major proponents of Fusion or Open Ballot Voting in Maine is the Working Families Party. In New York State, where Fusion Voting is permitted, the Working Families Party is a minor party that plays a major role in state government. A party whose executive leadership is comprised almost entirely by labor unions, Working Families avoids taking a position on many of the more controversial social issues. Instead, they consider themselves to be a “social justice party” with shared progressive values such as affordable health care, a higher minimum wage, and better schools.

The Employee Free Choice Act

It’s no secret that the percentage of the American workforce represented by labor unions has been on the decline in recent decades. And it’s no surprise that the middle class has been struggling economically during this same period of time.

The best hope for workers to improve their situation is joining with their brothers and sisters to bargain with their employers for better working conditions, wages and benefits. One of organized labor’s top priorities in the legislative arena is the leveling of the playing field when it comes to giving workers the right to belong to a labor union. The Employee Free Choice Act promises to do just that.

As it stands now, the cards are stacked against unions in the favor of the employers during any campaign to organize workers into a bargaining unit so that they may enjoy the benefits of union representation. Workers who try to exercise their legal right to organize in their workplace are often threatened, harassed, intimidated—even fired! The National Labor Relations Act is woefully inadequate in its stated goal of protecting these workers’ rights.

The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800) passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185. Reps. Thomas Allen and Michael Michaud of Maine, Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire all signed on as sponsors and voted in favor of the measure.

The Employee Free Choice Act would help to restore workers’ rights by doing the following:

· Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights
· Providing mediation and arbitration to help ensure a first contract and thwart employer refusal to bargain in good faith
· Allowing employees to form unions by signing authorization cards, often referred to as a “card check,” to help avoid anti-democratic employer coercion

The national AFL-CIO has invested considerable resources in support of this Employee Free Choice Act. They sent more than 5 million emails to online activists and held meetings with community leaders and members of Congress in over 100 cities to push for passage of the bill. In response, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other anti-union organizations have sought to use lies and distortions to portray the legislation as a violation of workers’ rights.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have pledged to stop the legislation through parliamentary maneuvering. Nevertheless, the AFL-CIO is expected to lobby our United States senators to ask them to support the bill. President Bush, consistent with his longstanding animosity toward organized labor, has promised a veto if it reaches his desk.

 

 

 

Universal Health Care: Why Should We Care?

Universal Health Care is the concept that everyone should have access to high-quality and affordable medical care. Most major industrialized countries have some form of Universal Health Care for all of their citizens. Notably, our closest neighbor to the north, Canada, has a Universal or "Single-Payer" Health Care System. The "Single-Payer" is the Canadian government.

Although every Canadian citizen has guaranteed health care coverage, that is not true here in the United States. Millions of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured. Health care costs continue to spiral upward. Those who do have health insurance often live in fear of losing their coverage.

Most members of IBEW 1837 enjoy good health care insurance coverage for themselves and for their families. It is one of the great benefits of union membership and our collective bargaining agreements. As union members, why should we care about those people who have to do without?

According the statistics provided by the AFL-CIO, there are 46 million Americans who are living without health care insurance. Nearly one-quarter of them, or more than 10 million, are children. Although these people lack insurance, they still have accidents and get sick. And when they do, when they can't pay their bills, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. That is just a part of what is driving up the cost of health care in the United States.

Many critics of the Universal Health Care concept cite concerns about quality of care under that system. However, consumers of health care services in countries with Universal care express overall satisfaction in the quality of care in most opinion surveys. What's more, the United States has already proven its ability to provide high-quality Universal care to large numbers of its citizens with Medicare. Medicare is a Universal Health Care system for all Americans age 65 and over.

As the cost of health care continues to increase, the amount of money that each of us must pay out-of-pocket will also increase. And as the cost of health care insurance skyrockets for our employers, it becomes more and more difficult for your Union to bargain for increases in wages and other benefits when negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.

If the United States were to implement some form of Universal Health Care, it would not only benefit those without adequate insurance. It would benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Union members at the contract bargaining table!