http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/major-victory-for-arizona-citizens-97538969.html

PHOENIX, June 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The Arizona Legislature's attempt to trick voters into approving an anti-employee ballot measure has been shot down by a Maricopa County Superior Court.

SCR 1026, the so-called "Right to Vote a Secret Ballot" measure, was ruled "unconstitutional" by Judge Robert H. Oberbillig who heard the case brought by UFCW Local 99 and its president Jim McLaughlin.

"There was nothing "fair" about this legislation," said McLaughlin. "It was little more than a despicable attempt to trick patriotic Arizona voters who value fair elections into approving an attack on the rights of all working people in our state."

The Court ruled that the Arizona Constitution already requires "secret ballots" for public offices and that extending the government's reach into private sector union representation matters would violate the constitution's provisions against wrapping two unrelated subjects together into one ballot measure.

The Court said specifically that SCR 1026 violates Article XXI, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, a provision that safeguards against this sort of trickery.

Judge Oberbillig wrote that public sector and private sector elections are not  sufficiently or logically related to one another.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 is the largest private sector union in Arizona representing over 18,000 men and women.

SOURCE UFCW Local 99

By Paul Rubin, Secretary-Treasurer

You may have voted for President Obama or you may have not. You may think he’s doing a great job, you might be indifferent or you might be totally opposed to him. But the Obama changes that every member of this union should support are the changes he has brought to the Department of Labor.

The most important and obvious change is the new secretary of Labor — Hilda Solis. Both in the California state legislature and later in Congress, she was a leading advocate for worker safety and worker rights.

In stark contrast, George W. Bush’s secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, was hostile to unions and worker safety. One of Chao’s first acts was to gut new ergonomic standards (such as repetitive motion injuries from which many of our members suffer) that had been developed over the previous decade. She also made compliance to worker safety and pay mostly voluntary for corporations.

Chao put new restrictions on workers receiving overtime pay and even advised employers how to avoid paying overtime.

Now comes “Saint Hilda,” as UFCW International President Joe Hansen refers to Hilda Solis.

She immediately hired 710 new inspectors, 130 at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 250 dedicated to dealing with the rampant problem of workers paid below minimum wage or being scammed of their pay by unscrupulous employers. A recent large-scale study of low-wage workers in U.S. cities showed that one in four workers (about 400,000) were paid less than minimum wage.

And Solis’ new chief of staff is Deborah Berkowitz, former health and safety director of the UFCW.

But perhaps the biggest changes being made are in worker safety.

Of immediate relevance is the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which for the first time in its history is run by a union man, Joe Main. Bush’s appointees to Mine and Safety were all mine industry executives.

The recent horrific mine disaster in West Virginia, at the Upper Big Branch Mine, is a case in point. The mine owner had a total disregard for worker safety and was allowed to ignore numerous citations.

In contrast, Solis and Main are committed to enforcing mine safety.

Bush’s last OSHA director previously worked for a large union-busting law firm. David Michaels, the new OSHA director under Solis, is a lifelong expert on occupational health and helped found the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. He wrote a book, Doubt Is Their Product, that attacks the use of fake science by corporations to undermine government health and safety regulations.

OSHA is now being proactive in taking aggressive steps to lessen injuries, especially in some of the most dangerous jobs like building construction and meatpacking.

OSHA is engaging the public by holding meetings and conferences around the country, getting input from unions, businesses and community groups.

Martin Hernandez, our Organizing Director, and I just attended such a conference in Houston. It was organized to deal with the alarmingly high rates of accidents suffered by Latino workers as compared to other workers.

The conference had workshops addressing ways to get more safety information out to workers and how to build support from the public for stronger safety rules.

Workers came from Los Angeles to speak about a program they developed with OSHA and more than 100 community organizations to improve the lives of car wash workers who are exposed to all kinds of harmful chemicals with little or no oversight.

Yes indeed, whatever your political orientation, having a government agency fighting for the benefit of workers is a welcome change.

Fresh and Easy has been vigorously fighting the union. In its anti-union zeal, the company developed policies against pro-union literature being distributed and against union representatives trying to visit workers in their homes away from management’s eyes.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found these policies to be in violation of the law, but Fresh and Easy is appealing that decision.

After the worst coal mining disaster in at least 25 years, Massey Energy chief executive officer Don Blankenship is facing long-overdue scrutiny for his record of putting coal profits over fundamental safety and health concerns.

On April 5, 2010, 29 miners were killed in an explosion at Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia.

Blankenship, a right-wing activist millionaire who sits on the boards of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association, used his company’s ties to the industry-dominated Bush Administration to paper over Massey’s egregious environmental and health violations.

Massey rewarded Republicans with massive donations after the company avoided paying billions in fines for a 2000 coal slurry disaster in Martin County, three times bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

After both mine inspectors and Massey employees got the same message that it was more important to “run coal” than to follow safety rules, a deadly fire broke out in the Aracoma Alma Mine in 2006, burning two men alive.

Blankenship was abetted by former employees placed at the highest levels of the federal mine safety system. Massey chief operating officer Stanley Suboleski was named a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and was nominated in December 2007 to run the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy. Suboleski is now back on the Massey board.

After being rejected twice by the Senate, one-time Massey executive Dick Stickler was put in charge of the MSHA in a recess appointment in October 2006. In the 1990s, Stickler oversaw Massey subsidiary

Performance Coal, the operator of the deadly Upper Big Branch Mine, after managing Beth Energy mines, which “incurred injury rates double the national average.”

A study conducted by Chicago’s Loyola University Center for Urban Research and Learning documents how the opening of a Walmart in Chicago has hurt neighborhood businesses.

The study, which examines the economic effects of a Walmart store that opened in the West Side of Chicago, finds that existing businesses have a “high probability” of closing due to decreased business.

It also finds that the new Walmart store caused the loss of about 300 full-time jobs in the area, with no increase in economic activity or tax revenue.

The researchers conclude that communities should not see Walmart as a solution to local economic struggles. They found no evidence that the store sparked any significant net growth or economic activity in the area.

“This study is more proof that Walmart is bad for communities,” Local 99 President Jim McLaughlin said.

On March 21, a dramatic vote in Congress capped a century-long struggle to make health care affordable and accessible for almost every American. President Obama signed the bill, titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, into law two days later.

It is a complicated law because it seeks to bring structure, logic and efficiency to a health care system few people understood in the first place.

In part because of deliberate distortions that were spread by opponents of the bill, many people have mistaken ideas about the new law’s provisions.

Tens of millions of American families without health insurance have been forced to rely on expensive emergency rooms to get their medical care, their conditions horribly worsened because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor earlier for basic and preventive care. The taxpayers have been paying the costs for this inefficient, wasteful and cruel system.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates health care reform will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

There is still much to do, but much has been accomplished.

• The new law will extend health insurance to an estimated 32 million Americans. This means about 95 percent of the population will be covered. Those who will not be covered will be undocumented immigrants.
• Health care will become affordable for everyone. Those who have small incomes will be able to acquire coverage either through a subsidy fund or through an extension of Medicare. Individual Americans will be able to join “insurance exchanges” that, because of their large memberships, will be able to negotiate better rates with health insurance companies.
• Health care will remain affordable for those who already have it. In the future, insurance premium increases will be limited by tighter regulation of the insurance industry. For example, the bill ends gender discrimination in setting insurance rates and establishes a procedure to review insurance premium increases and to take action against unreasonable rate hikes.
• No American will be denied health care coverage because of a previous medical condition. This is a huge benefit that UFCW members have enjoyed all along, and now all Americans will have it, too.
• Union members will benefit. Medical costs will be better controlled, which means our trust funds will be better able to maintain our current high standards of benefits. UFCW members will not have to pay a tax on their benefits. (See President Jim McLaughlin’s column for details on how the law will help control medical costs.)
• Union employers will benefit. The new law includes incentives for all large companies to provide medical care for their workers. This will help level the playing field between union and non-union employers. Union employers will feel less competitive pressure to cut their costs by demanding cutbacks at the bargaining table.
• Young people will benefit. People 26 and younger will be covered by their parents’ health plans.
• Seniors will benefit. The law also cuts brand-name drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries by 50 percent in 2011 and closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” completely by 2020.

By Paul Rubin
Secretary-Treasurer, UFCW Local 99

Last issue, I wrote about the need for government as a crucial part of any civilized nation.

The purpose of government, as outlined in our Constitution, is to defend the citizenry, to promote tranquility and to ensure the general wellbeing of all. Govern­ment provides the military, schools, courts, highways, etc., etc., etc.

We pay for these necessities through taxes. Yet there has been a great cry out among many Americans of late against taxes. The Tea Party movement is currently the largest and best-known among these protest groups.

It is quite understandable why many Americans are not happy about paying taxes. People are struggling in this economic recession and increasing taxes would make their lives even tougher.

But I think the question shouldn’t be whether we should pay more taxes or less. In fact, we should be asking two very different questions:

1. Are taxes being paid fairly?
2. What are we getting for our taxes?

WHO IS PAYING WHAT?

In popular culture, the 1950s is often portrayed as an idyllic period, a time of strong families, good schools and safe neighborhoods. Some of these are myths, some are more real. But the tax burden was vastly fairer back then. Millionaires and corporations paid much higher percentages of taxes than they do today. The rest of us paid about the same percentages then as we do now.

Does it make any sense that today wages earned are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains, for which no one actually performs any work and are mainly the domain of the wealthy?

Unfortunately, over the last 40 years tax fairness has disappeared. As corporations gained power (and worked to weaken unions), and as wealth was transferred to a shrinking minority at the top, those with wealth and power were able to dramatically change the tax structure.

Obviously, with the wealthy paying less, someone had to pick up the slack.

Yep, that means you and me. It hasn’t been as noticeable when our economy is doing well, even when a recession lasts for a year or so. But that is not the case now. We are in for hard times for an unforeseeable future. Housing prices aren’t going up any time soon and unemployment isn’t coming down any time soon.

Our government, whether federal, state or local, is hurting big time. Revenues are way down and additional monies are needed. But why raise taxes on us, the least able to pay more? Why not raise the taxes on those who can best afford it and who have prospered the most?

Won’t happen? Well, not without a fight. The citizens of Oregon just did it — raised taxes, via the initiative process, on the wealthy.

But why won’t our leaders in government take the lead?

Here’s part of an answer. You might have seen the story recently that Wall Street is angry with the Obama Administration for proposing some (very modest) restrictions on the big banks who put us in this economic predicament. So what is Wall Street’s response?

The banks and other finance institutions stated that they were shifting their financial contributions to the Republicans because they are not going to get “kicked around” anymore by the Democrats.

In other words, when they pay their politicians, they expect to be rewarded, and if you’re “kicking” them around, they’ll take their money elsewhere — to the other political party.

Are we getting our money’s worth?

You don’t need to be a master of observation to know that we are getting snookered.

Our infrastructure is wasting away — our roads, bridges, school buildings and public transportation are in an embarrassing state. Our health care system is the most expensive in the world by half again, yet we are ranked 36th in the world in having a healthy population.

We’ve been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we sent our soldiers into battle without appropriate trucks or armor. Fewer and fewer people can afford college, even our public universities.

There is plenty of money to bail out the banks (with no strings attached!), but pittances are offered to help people who can’t pay their mortgages.

They have us fighting among ourselves for the crumbs. Why, in the wealthiest country in the world, do we have to close our highway rest stops, our state parks, our motor vehicle offices?

Why do the police and fire departments have to fight the city workers who have to fight the social service agencies for the leftovers?

The solution is not tax cuts. The solution is not less government (which really means fewer services for us). Nor is the solution higher taxes for those who work for a living.

The solution is for those who make more to pay more. The solution is to not allow the rich to buy the politicians (it is estimated that to run for Senate in Arizona you need at least $12 million – and guess who has that kind of money?), so that government spending goes to the people.

Remember that saying — a government by the people and for the people? It doesn’t have to be a dream.

Union Leaders Lobby Representatives on Capital Hill

In the days leading up to the historic vote on March 21 to reform America’s health care system, UFCW leaders lobbied legislators in Washington, D.C., urging them to vote for the legislation.

Local 99 President Jim McLaughlin, Political Director Stan Chavira and Organizer Laura Dent, who were in the nation’s capital to participate in the UFCW’s Legislative and Political Action Conference, performed an important role in the lobbying effort.

They spent most of their time in Washington meeting with members of Congress, encouraging them to vote for health care reform.

“Sunday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed health care reforms that will better serve all Americans,” UFCW International President Joe Hansen said in a statement released after the vote.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis opened the legislative conference with a rousing call for action. “We need you to encourage members of Congress to vote for health care reform,” she said.

“We need you to implore them to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. You are the voice of working America!”

The delegates also heard from Department of Health and Human Servi­ces Secre­tary Kathleen Sebelius, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.), U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Democratic National Com­mittee Chair Tim Kaine, among other speak­ers.

“Due to the efforts of the people of the UFCW, health care reform is within our reach,” Sebelius said.

“We need to change the in­surance rules so in­sur­ance companies can not choose who gets health care and who doesn’t.”

Rep. Hare said the pen­ding health care vote would be the culmination of a hundred-year struggle on Capitol Hill.

“People have been filing for bankruptcy be­cause of health care costs,” Hare said. “That is not right. We have a moral imperative to pass this bill and I ain’t leaving the legislature till we get it done.”

House Speaker Pelosi congratulated the UFCW for its recent organizing victory at Smithfield Foods Co. “Unions focus on creating jobs and that is the number one pursuit of this Congress,” she said.

Pelosi said that, after passage of health care legislation, Congress should focus on enacting immigration reform and the Employee Free Choice Act.

“Health care is a right, not a privilege, and so is the choice to join a union if workers want a union,” Pelosi said. “That’s why we need the EFCA.”

By: Jim McLaughlin
President, UFCW Local 99, and UFCW International Vice President

You have protection in the event you are unfairly fired or disciplined. Our union contracts contain grievance provisions that require “just cause” for any discipline, and the union investigates and resolves thousands of such grievances every year.

The wages you receive are negotiated by the union and are the result of many years of hard work and dedication by union members, as well as officers and staff.

Your health benefits are among the best in the country and are the envy of many at non-union companies.

You will have a pension plan, which allows countless members to look forward to retirement at a reasonable age, with the security of knowing that they will have enough income to enjoy it.

The union strives to protect these standards by engaging in informational picket lines, rallies and other campaigns to raise public awareness of threats to our jobs posed by Walmart and other corporate villains.

Your union works hard to educate public officials about issues that concern our membership and all working Americans.

Most importantly: union membership gives you a voice — the right to speak out, individually and collectively.

Our union gives us the right to make a positive impact on the way we and our fellow workers are treated.

Imagine what your life would be like without a union. You would have no job security — your boss could fire you at will. Retirement would not be a concept in your future. Your employer wouldn’t have to provide you with health insurance, or it may be so expensive you would have to choose between taking your child to the doctor or providing meals.

I recall one of our members who told me of her unfortunate bout with a serious illness. The cost of med­ical care to keep her alive escalated to hundreds of thousands of dollars. She said that without her union-negotiated health insurance plan, all that she had worked for through the years would have been devastated. She would have lost everything — her house, her car, her savings.

Union membership means strength in numbers, and that strength leads to a better future for you and your family.

An annual survey by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in 2009 full-time workers who were union members had much higher earnings than non-union workers.

The median weekly earnings of union members was $908, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710.

The study shows that union membership was 12.3 percent of the total U.S. work force, essentially unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 771,000 to 15.3 million, largely reflecting the overall drop in employment due to the recession.

Other information on union membership:

• More public-sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private sector employees (7.4 million), despite there being five times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.
• Workers in education, training and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.1 percent.
• Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (25.2 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.1 percent).
• The union membership rate was higher for men (13.3 percent) than for women (11.3 percent).
• Union membership was high­est among workers 55 to 64 (16.6 percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred among those ages 16 to 24 (4.7 percent).

Even though David Gomez collects superhero comic books, he doesn’t consider himself a superhero, except when it comes to standing up for his union. “I will fight for my union every chance I get,” Gomez said.

“Working at a job under a union contract is the best thing that ever happened to me. The union is the reason we have the benefits we do.”

Gomez has been a union member for all of the 19 years he has worked in the retail food industry.

He began his career at Fry’s in Phoenix, and after six years he transferred to Safeway 1955 in Peoria, where he works as a stocker.

“I joined the union as soon as I could,” he recalled about his early days in the industry.

“I have eight family members who work in the stores and they are all union members.

“I also have a lot of friends who work in a variety of industries not covered by a union contract. It didn’t take much to see the difference in wages and benefits.”

Gomez added: “Any organization that does so much for its members deserves my support.”

Gomez said that job security is the most important benefit offered by working under a union contract.

“I don’t have to worry about being dismissed just because my boss doesn’t like me,” Gomez said.

“And I don’t have to worry about my salary suddenly being cut for no good reason. That has happened to several people I know who work non-union.”

Gomez became a steward three years ago.

“It was time to step up to the plate,” he said. “I have some pretty good knowledge of the contract, and if there is something I don’t know I call Fred [Yamashita], my union representative. He is always ready to help.”

Gomez has served Local 99 as an advisory committee member and as a volunteer during contract negotiations. Recently, he became a Special Project Union Repre­sen­ta­tive (SPU

R). “I go into stores to encourage non members to join the union,” Gomez said.

“Worker-to-worker is always the best way to persuade people to join. I just tell them what the union does for all of us. I also tell them how important it is to have a strong union and that the more members we have, the stronger we become.”

He said he has signed-up several new members.

Gomez is a fifth-generation Arizonan. His great-grandfather was born in Ft. McDowell.

“He told us that his family went there for protection against Apache attacks,” he said. “I loved hearing his stories about the real Old West.”

When he isn’t at work or engaging in SPUR activities, Gomez likes to spend time with his longtime girlfriend, Sara Howard, and his 14-year-old stepdaughter, Claudia. He also likes to ride his Harley and add to his superhero comic book collection.

“When I was a kid, I went into a store and saw a Superman vs. Muhammad Ali comic book,” Gomez said. “I fell in love with superhero comic books and started collecting them. I have thousands of them stored in my home. It has been a great hobby for me.

“Superheroes always stand up for what is right, just like we all need to do in life.”

Beginning Jan. 1, Colorado reduced its minimum wage to reflect a falling cost of living. It is one of 10 states in the country where the minimum wage is tied to inflation.

The indexing provision was designed to protect low-wage workers from having flat wages as the cost of living rises. But because Colorado’s law allows wage declines, the minimum wage will drop whenever the consumer price index moves downward.

The index fell 0.6 percent between the middle of 2008 and the middle of 2009, mostly because of falling fuel prices.

The minimum wage is reduced to $7.24 from $7.28. However, since the federal minimum wage is $7.25, most workers affected would lose only 3 cents an hour.

No other state has lowered its minimum wage since the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938.

Although other states, including Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, have adjustable minimum wages and have seen their consumer price indexes fall, they have no plans to lower their standards.

In 2006, Colorado voters approved a referendum that mandates an adjustable minimum wage. Proponents said they never intended to see the wage rate go down. They say that employers of the estimated 50,000 to 70,000 workers in Colorado who make minimum wage are free to leave wages flat and hope they will.

Editors Note: The reduction in Colorado’s minimum wage is small but significant for workers who are struggling to make a living. People who make minimum wages are already earning less than they need to survive. Any reduction is unconscionable. This development threatens to lower community standards and harm the overall economy. — Jim McLaughlin

Albertsons LLC Attempts to Buy Bashas'

Albertsons LLC is reported to have offered $260-$290 million to buy Bashas’ Supermarkets.

Bashas’ has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since July 2009, trying to re-organize to stay in business. Bashas’ has rejected Albertsons LLC’s offer, but the bankruptcy court could decide otherwise.

Bashas’ operates 129 stores under the Bashas’, AJs and Food City banners. Albertsons LLC operates the 43 Albertsons stores in Arizona, as well as stores in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Florida.

Union grocery workers across Arizona voted overwhelmingly to ratify a new contract with the Fry’s, Safeway and Smith’s supermarket chains on Dec. 10.

The members of UFCW Local 99 voted by mail to approve a three-year agreement that does not include employee-paid premiums for health insurance. The new contract does include wage increases and sufficient funding to maintain the workers’ pension fund.

“More than 50 percent of those eligible participated in the vote — an unusually high percentage that reflects our members’ intense interest in the negotiations that produced this agreement,” President Jim McLaughlin said.

“This new contract is a significant improvement over the employers’ previous offer, which was rejected by the members,” McLaughlin said.

“We are glad the companies were able to come to terms with us and we look forward to working with them over the next three years in a spirit of trust and mutual support.”

McLaughlin thanked the members for their “unshakeable strength and solidarity” during the 13-month negotiating process.

“Their support made this good contract possible,” he said.

The picket signs that we thankfully never had to use said “FIGHTING FOR HEALTHCARE”. Through the solidarity of the members of Local 99, vast improvements were achieved. Foremost among these are:

• Our Health Plan will not be under-funded. Contributions from the employers almost tripled, from 15 cents to 40 cents.
• The additional 25 cents an hour translates to about $8 million more per year in employer contributions.
• NO PREMIUMS for new hires.
• A Pre-paid Deductible Account for employees hired after ratification of this Agreement that new employees will need to pay into for health coverage. The monies paid by the new employees are held in a separate account and will be used as payment towards their future deductibles and co-insurance payments. None of this money goes to the employers.
• Even if some employees choose to not have health insurance, the employers are still required to make payments to the Health Plan on their hours worked to further prevent under-funding of the Health Plan.
• No waiting to cover your children. Employees will now have coverage for their dependent children at the same time they are eligible for employee health insurance.

NONE of these benefits described above were in the employers’ previous proposals. Combined with increased funding to our Pension Plan and the maintaining of our Rule of 85, members of UFCW Local 99 know their health insurance and pension are secure for at least the next 3 years.